RE: Implementer's Guide - Task Management Issue
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ips |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E055068B8A80@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com> |
> Let's try this line of reasoning - the target issues the Nop-Out, now when > can it free the resources? Answer: > - The Nop-In response comes back, OR > - The connection times out and is torn down. > Now, what if the Nop-Out is not issued - what does the target wait for to > free the resources? Answer: > - The transfers complete, OR > - The connection times out and is torn down. > Those look similar enough at the target (the worst case is the same - the > resources are tied up until an uncooperative initiator times out) that > I don't see the harm in allowing the early TMF return without the new > key. The clear distinction is that the first two bullets are different; > if the new key is not negotiated, the target has to wait for the transfers > to complete; the new key and the Nop-Out are necessary to walk away earlier > when the initiator involved is able to continue the transfers. That got slightly twisted - what it should have talked about was the target issuing the new Async Message and the Nop-Out response coming back. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips