Re: iSCSI : draft contradicts itself in sections 1.2.5 & 5.5

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

I would also kindly invite you to read the answer. Julo

Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com> on 25/01/2001 20:05:14

Please respond to Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: iSCSI : draft contradicts itself in sections 1.2.5 & 5.5




julian_satran@il.ibm.com wrote:

> SHOULD NOT means NOT unless you have a good reason not too. And with a
> digest error you have a good reason to - don't you?

Not if you consider all the problems raised regarding this
"discard and retry" policy on digest errors.
See :
http://ips.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/mail/msg03110.html

- Santosh

>
> Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com> on 25/01/2001 00:18:11
>
> Please respond to Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>
>
> To:   IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:
> Subject:  iSCSI : draft contradicts itself in sections 1.2.5 & 5.5
>
> Julian,
>
> In Section 1.2.5, the draft states that :
> "A target SHOULD NOT silently discard data and request re-transmission
> through R2T."
>
> In Section 5.5 the draft encourages the above to be performed by stating
> :
> "When a target receives an iSCSI Data PDU with a data payload digest
> error, it MUST discard it and request retransmission with a R2T."
>
> What is the intent of the former statement in Section 1.2.5, when digest
> error recovery requires just the opposite ?
>
> Regards,
> Santosh
>
>  - santoshr.vcf

 - santoshr.vcf