RE: iSCSI Autosense

["James Smart" <james.smart@trebia.com>]

As a long time implementer of SCSI and SCSI driver stacks, I
too recommend that Autosense be mandatory. As SCSI becomes more 
packetized with more packets in flight - this feature becomes
more and more necessary. It also begs for more support of ACA.

-- james

--------------------
James Smart         
Trebia Networks, Inc                  Ph:   978-318-9547
35 Forest Ridge Rd                    Cell: 603-674-3687
Concord,  MA   01742                  james.smart@trebia.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Ralph Weber
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 11:03 PM
> To: IPS Reflector
> Subject: iSCSI Autosense
> 
> 
> Note: Clause numbers reference draft-satran-iscsi-01.txt.
> 
> There is nothing in the SCSI Architecture that requires the A
> Flags bit (byte 2 bit 7) described in 3.2 and 3.2.1.  Specifically,
> the SCSI Architecture does not require a transport to have the
> ability to disable Autosense.
> 
> Contingent Allegiance (the target state that follows a CHECK
> CONDITION in the absence of Autosense) is not a required SCSI
> behavior.  In fact, Contingent Allegiance is an out dated
> SCSI behavior that continues to be documented in SAM for
> backwards compatibility.  Contingent Allegiance is wholly
> superseded by the Autosense capability.
> 
> Autosense is dramatically simpler to implement provided the
> SCSI transport protocol allows for delivery of the sense data
> in the same packet as the CHECK CONDITION status (as is the
> case in iSCSI).
> 
> IMHO iSCSI would be well served by following the precedent
> set by FCP.  Remove the A bit and state explicitly that all
> iSCSI devices are required to support Autosense and that
> all instances of a CHECK CONDITION status shall be accompanied
> by Autosense data.
> 
> Note: These changes will also affect 3.3.7, 5.3 and possibly
> other clauses of the internet draft.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ralph...
> 
> 
> 
>