Re: ISCSI: Urgent pointer consensus

[Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>]

Daniel Smith wrote:

> Matt Wakeley wrote:
> >
> > Um, who, besides Doug, has objected?  Seems to me most of the discussion has
>
> I object to the use of "MUST" with the urgent pointer, for the following
> reasons.  If you're time pressed, just read the first sentence of the
> objections.  B-)
>
> 1) It slows down every iSCSI implementation while benefiting a handful of
> iSCSI analysers.

The benefit to analyzers was only a side benefit.  The main reason is to place
data in memory where it belongs in the presence of lost frames.  See my note
"ISCSI: Why the use of the Urgent Pointer"

-Matt