RE: Implementer's Guide - Task Management Issue

[email protected]
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.