IMHO, interface looks fine. Also, shouldn't we add mutual authentication for discovery too ? I seek some clarification though. In a Netapp box, I just specify incoming and outgoing password specified at each target level. No separate password for discovery. Is that an assumed behavior ? if so, aren't we deviating from it ? I do see that the RFC (3720) leaves it to the implementer about how security is handled, so it would be totally up to us. My question is, Is the deviation acceptable (in common practice). Thanks chandra On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:59 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:28:38 +0100 > Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 23.02.2010 01:23, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:04:57 -0800 > > > Chandra Seetharaman<sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> Applied the patch to the latest RHEL 5.4 errata. Applied cleanly. > > >> > > >> Tested it to be working fine (I bound the user as you bound it with the > > >> bind command). > > > > > > Nice. > > > > > > > > >> I have one question though. How do I specify it in targets.conf ? > > > > > > Not supported yet. Needs to update scripts/tgt-admin. > > > > Could you tell me what tgtadm command would I have to run? > > > > Something like: > > > > tgtadm --op new --mode account --user fujita --password tomo > > tgtadm --op bind --mode account --user fujita > > Yeah. If you don't specify tid, then you bind the account to discovery > sessions. > > But I'm not sure this is a good interface or not. Any suggestions? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
