SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    iSCSI : NOP-OUT & NOP-IN issues.


    • To: IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    • Subject: iSCSI : NOP-OUT & NOP-IN issues.
    • From: Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>
    • Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:19:31 -0800
    • Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="------------8EF5842A246230839B3304C1"
    • Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino.
    • Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

    Julian,
    
    I have several concerns regarding the current semantics for the NOP
    operation, as defined in the lastest iSCSI draft. (iSCSI-02.txt) :
    
    Section 2.12 NOP-OUT PDU
    =========================
    1) Quoting from the draft :
    "The NOP-Out can be sent by an initiator because of a NOP-In with the
     poll bit set, in which case the Target Tag will copy the NOP-In value."
    
    There is no poll bit in the NOP-IN PDU. What is the intent of the
    above ?
    
    2) Quoting from the draft :
    "The NOP-Out MUST have the Initiator Task Tag set only if the P bit is
     one or the DataRN field is set."
    
    There is no DataRN field in the NOP-OUT PDU. Is the intent of this to
    state
    that :
    "The NOP-OUT must have the Initiator Task Tag set if the NOP-OUT is
    being
    used to acknowledge DataRN[s] from received READ Data PDU[s]" ?
    Some clarification would help here.
    
    3) Quoting from the draft :
    "The NOP-Out MUST have the Target Tag set only if it issued in
     response to a NOP-In with the P bit one, in which case it copies the
     Target Tag from the NOP-In PDU."
    
    Some comments on the above :
    i) There is no P bit in a NOP-IN PDU.
    
    ii) If a target wanted to originate a NOP for some reason, it should use
    
    NOP-OUT. The NOP-OUT should be intended for the originator of the NOP
    and the
    responder of the NOP should reply with NOP-IN.
    This keeps the NOP semantics simple and intuitive.
    
    ii) Why is there a need for a target to originate a NOP-OUT ? In the
    interests
    of simplicity, targets should be prohibited from originating the NOP
    operation.
    
    iii) With the above semantics, how is an initator to know if a received
    NOP-IN
    is being originated by a target [to which it needs to respond with a
    NOP-OUT]
    or the NOP-IN is being received in response to a transmitted NOP-OUT ?
    
    The semantics of NOP-OUT used by the originator of the NOP operation and
    
    NOP-IN used by the responder of the NOP operation seem more intuitive.
    
    Section 2.13. NOP-IN PDU
    =========================
    1) References to a P bit in the NOP-IN PDU which does not exist.
    
    2) This section specifies the use of 0 for Initiator Task Tag when the
    target
    originates a NOP operation. 0 is a valid value for Initiator Task Tag
    and its
    usage can confuse the initiator b/n a target originated NOP-IN and a
    target
    response to NOP-OUT sent on an initiator task tag of 0.
    The reserved value for Initiator Task Tag should be 0xFFFFFFFF, as is
    the case
    with the Target Task Tag.
    
    Thanks,
    Santosh
    
    begin:vcard 
    n:Rao;Santosh 
    tel;work:408-447-3751
    x-mozilla-html:FALSE
    org:Hewlett Packard, Cupertino.;SISL
    adr:;;19420, Homestead Road, M\S 43LN,	;Cupertino.;CA.;95014.;USA.
    version:2.1
    email;internet:santoshr@cup.hp.com
    title:Software Design Engineer
    x-mozilla-cpt:;21088
    fn:Santosh Rao
    end:vcard
    


Home

Last updated: Wed Aug 07 16:18:59 2002
11559 messages in chronological order