SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6



    Section 2.2.3:
    
    The AHSLength field where it is requires RISC type processors to shift the
    length left by 8 bytes.
    
    Section 2.3.5, 3rd paragraph: contradicts itself.  First it states that a AHS
    header "MUST" be present, then goes on to define what the bi-di read length is
    if the header is not present.  If it's not present, it's a protocol error.
    
    Section 2.4.1, last sentance: "b0-b3 MUST be 0" s/b "b1-b4 MUST be 0".
    
    Section 2.7.7: why have residual bits/fields in a data PDU?  If there is
    residual, then send a status PDU indicating the residual value.
    
    Section 2.8.3: Keys not understood by the target should be expicitely
    indicated as not being understood.  Silence is not a good way to indicate that
    one does not understand something.  Also, something more ascii friendly such
    as a semi-colon (;) should be used to separate key-value pairs instead of a
    null (0x00) character.  This would allow generic text manipulation libraries
    to be used.
    
    Section 2.9.3: why "MUST" key-value pairs be returned in the same order they
    were issued?  Seems like a rather strong requirement for no apparent reason.
    
    Section 2.12.3: indicate that the LUN is copied from the NOP-IN.  This is much
    more clear than "the correct value for the task".
    
    Section 2.14: Why is there no CmdSN for the logout command?  Also, 2 ways of
    performing the same operation (cleaning up) are stated in the 3rd paragraph. 
    In the interest of reducing "options", I suggest that one be picked as the
    only method.
    
    Section 2.17.4: "The target assigns" should be "The target may assign".
    
    Section 6.3 & 6.7.2: why "MUST" a target reissue missing responses?  What if
    it is not able to?  There should be the option to reject the SNACK.
    
    Appendix: "Initial Marker-less Interval" - I say again, there should not be a
    "minimum markerless interval".  This should be whatever is negotiated.
    
    
    -Matt Wakeley
    Agilent Technologies
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:48 2001
6315 messages in chronological order