RE: iSCSI Reqts: In-Order Delivery

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

David,

I suggested one solution that has several benefits.  This one suggestion is
not the only option to resolve this issue.  Connection Allegiance does not
resolve state with respect to Management requests.  Off hand I can think of
several other options as these requests are clearly indicated.  How this
problem is resolved should be considered a separate issue, but there is this
requirement that should not be overlook.  My interpretation of SAM places
this obligation on the transport.

Doug


> Focusing solely on the discussion needed to resolve the
> (last call) issue in the requirements draft:
>
> (A) Charles suggests that "ordered delivery of SCSI commands"
> 	should include task management commands.  That
> 	was the intent of the proposal and words should be
> 	added to make this clear.  Section 7.3 of the -06
> 	version of the main iSCSI document contains an
> 	initial version of a description of how task management
> 	commands can be executed immediately but have the
> 	effects they would have had if delivered in order.
>
> (B) Doug is concerned that the task management response
> 	may arrive before the responses to one or more
> 	commands that were affected by the task management
> 	command.  While his technical concern is valid,
> 	and has/is being discussed, I don't think foreclosing
> 	that discussion by requiring session-wide
> 	synchronization of responses in the requirements
> 	document is the right thing to do.  Hence I would
> 	not change the proposal to require such synchronization.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>