RE: ISCSI: Urgent pointer consensus

[ldalleore@snapserver.com]

Please add my name to the list of people in favor of making the Urgent
Pointer optional (MAY).  Furthermore, I would be in favor of adding the
urgent pointer to the list of negotiated options (one per stream
direction), since there could be situations in which a non "Urgent Pointer
aware" receiver might be faster/work better with a plain TCP stream and
therefore would not want to receive urgent pointer data (TCP/IP
acceleration cards come to mind).

Luciano Dalle Ore
Snap Appliances Inc./Quantum





Black_David@emc.com on 11/14/2000 11:16:39 AM

To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:    (bcc: Luciano Dalle Ore/Meridian Data)
Subject:  RE: ISCSI: Urgent pointer consensus




> > I also believe that based on discussion on the list, WG rough consensus
> > does NOT exist for requiring this use of the URG flag and Urgent
pointer,
> > (too many people have objected to making them mandatory), and hence
> > the current "MUST" will have to be replaced.
>
> Um, who, besides Doug, has objected?  Seems to me most of the discussion
has
> been centered around why it would be useful.  Once the reason(s) have
been
> explained, I don't see too much dissention.

That's not what I see on the list.  For starters, Daniel Smith,
Glen Turner, and Ronald Lee have objected to the mechanism
or specifically to making it mandatory, and I think Silvano
Gai just added himself to that list.  More people can probably
be found by searching the list archives.  Please don't confuse
having the last word with winning the argument.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------