RE: Use of TargetAddress conflict

Hi Eddy,
 
I think it's clear that sending a SendTargets response containing a
target record with just the TargetName kvp is legal. While the utility
of such a response is questionable there are numerous reasons why a
target may choose to do this; you've already stated one.
 
I agree with Paul and don't see any need for the IG / C&C doc to expand
this.
 
Cheers
Ken


________________________________

From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 10:30
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ips] Use of TargetAddress conflict


I remember when we were working on this. At that time some people didn't
want to send the target address if it was already known by the
initiator. In my target, I have an option to suppress the target address
for cases when the target is behind a NAT device and hence I don't know
"my address". So far every initiator I've tested with has handled it.
 
But today when I was going over the text it seemed to be questionable
and I figured I would ask. If people think it is questionable text then
I would ask Mallikarjun if he would clear it up in the implementation
guide.
 
Eddy

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: [email protected] 
	To: [email protected] ; [email protected] 
	Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:14 PM
	Subject: RE: [Ips] Use of TargetAddress conflict
	
	
	I am aware this section is refering to SendTargets usage. Are
you sure that bit of text did slip in there when someone was thinking
about TargetName being used in the login? 
	 
	Dan

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Eddy Quicksall
[mailto:[email protected]]
		Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:02 PM
		To: Sullivan, Daniel; [email protected]
		Subject: Re: [Ips] Use of TargetAddress conflict
		
		
		This is in response to the SendTargets command.

			----- Original Message ----- 
			From: [email protected] 
			To: [email protected] ; [email protected]

			Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:57 PM
			Subject: RE: [Ips] Use of TargetAddress conflict

			Is this trying to cover the case where
TargetName is returned in reponse to a login? During login you don't
have to return the TargetAddress.
			 
			Dan

				-----Original Message-----
				From: Eddy Quicksall
[mailto:[email protected]]
				Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:27 PM
				To: [email protected]
				Subject: [Ips] Use of TargetAddress
conflict
				
				
				Is there a conflict in wording here? Is
the TargetAddress required?
				 
				Appendix D says "A target record begins
with the TargetName text key, followed by a list of TargetAddress text
keys". This implies that a TargetAddress must accompany each TargetName.
				 
				But a few paragraphs down it says "Each
target record returned includes zero or more TargetAddress fields".
				 
				 
				Eddy

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips