|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI:Async Message PDU>Julian will doubtless pick up the rest of these, >but I thought I'd take this issue, since it was >part of what we did in Orlando. > >> 4. Somehow, "Asynchronous Message" seems at odds with the rest of the >> usage in the draft in regards to PDUs (since a message is introduced as >> PDU in section 1.2). Should we may be just call it an AEN PDU? Section >> 2.14.3 calls this so. (I realize that it may not always result in a >> SCSI-level AER.) > >One of the things we did in Orlando was to change >some of the terminology with the goal of each term and >acronym being unambiguously owned by a single layer >in the protocol stack, in particular making a sharp >distinction between SCSI concepts and iSCSI mechanisms. > >All the *RN entities changed to *SN for this reason >(SCSI has a CmdRN, so all *RN entities are SCSI, and >all *SN entities are iSCSI). Similarly, all AE* >entities are SCSI, and we went with "Asynchronous >Message <*>" to name the iSCSI entities. This matters >here because there are circumstances in which iSCSI >will send Asynchronous Message PDUs for its own use >even when SCSI has disabled AER. The usage of "AEN >PDU" in 2.14.3 is probably an editing oversight. >Suggestions for words to use instead of "Message" >are welcome, but they must not start with the letter >"E" ;-). I see what you're saying. My point was that "Asynchronous Message PDU" is redundant. Should we just call it "Async PDU"/ "Async Indication PDU"? BTW, doesn't a similar rule apply for SACK? Thanks. > >Thanks, >--David > -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Organization MS 5668 Hewlett-Packard, Roseville. cbm@rose.hp.com
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:28 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |