RE: not every song

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Bob,

I am not sure I understand the point.  Not that I would advocate such
modifications, but should these points become a deciding factor, the service
parameter for such negotiations has already been defined within FCP-2 as of
recently.  Such a decision for removal may have been premature should
network latency argue for Word 3, bit 3 being set.

Again, I am agnostic about this issue, but I would rather stick with FCP
structures.  Should there be attempts to provide zero copy, adopting FCP
structures permit a greater reliance on these structure's stability.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@Brocade.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:37 PM
> To: 'Douglas Otis'; John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: not every song
>
>
> >  FCP
> >  offers WRITE-DATA and READ-RESPONSE structures if desired.
>
> Reminder:
>
> No, it doesn't.  FCP-2 (the new and improved FCP) took the
> function out because nobody implemented it and it did not make
> sense.  It would have required additional recovery mechanisms and
> it did not improve performance.
>
> Bob
>