RE: iSCSI: Questions For You

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Sorry - I'll fix the inconsistency. The statement you found is an overlook.

(I mean" However, the target SHOULD NOT issue overlapping R2T request (i.e.
referring to the same data area).")

I'll fix that.

Thanks,
Julo


"Ferrari, Stephen" <smf@pirus.com> on 04/01/2001 17:21:22

Please respond to "Ferrari, Stephen" <smf@pirus.com>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: Questions For You




Julian -

>     Assuming the above is correct, this is equivalent to an implicit R2T
>     being sent and received at Offset 0 for ?first burst size? bytes;
>     adding this analogy might clarify the text.  Taken with the text from
>     Section 2.15 (2.16 in the 12/30 draft), this implies that ?a target
>     SHOULD NOT issue an R2T which overlaps with (the implied R2T
>     corresponding to) any negotiated unsolicited data.?  If the analogy
is
>     incorrect, are there any requirements around overlapping R2Ts with
>     unsolicited data

>    <JS> this is not correct - targets are allowed to send R2T for
>     whenever and whatever they find appropriate and that includes
>     re-requesting data for failed digests (data blocks).</js>

Could you please clarify this sentence from Section 2.16 from the new
draft:

"However, the target SHOULD NOT issue overlapping R2T request (i.e.
referring to the same data area)."

It seems to conflict with your statement above.  Or if you interpret them
as
not in conflict because of "SHOULD NOT" vs. "MUST NOT", then why isn't it
analogous to say that the target SHOULD NOT overlap an R2T with the implied
R2T corresponding to the unsolicited data?

Thanks,

     Stephen