SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: Unsolicited Data.



    
    The current spec states that the F bit is "set to 1 when the immediate data
    that accompany the command are all the data associated with this command. It
    is an error if the Length and Expected Length do not match and this bit is
    set to 1". 
    
    I interpret this as there is no more data to follow and not that the
    initiator has opted not to use the unsolicited data feature.  Therefore the
    spec needs to be modified to indicate that if unsolicited data has been
    negotiated (i.e. InitialR2T=no), then the initiator MUST send unsolicited
    data of length = min( FirstBurstSize, ExpectedTransferLength ) minus any
    immediate data sent).
    
    Matthew Burbridge
    NIS-Bristol
    Hewlett Packard
    Telnet: 312 7010
    E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ayman Ghanem [mailto:aghanem@cisco.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:31 PM
    To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
    
    
    If the initiator decides not to send immediate or unsolicited data when it
    has negotiated to do so, then the initiator must set the F-bit in the
    command PDU. This prompts the target to send R2T.
    
    I still agree that the spec should indicate that the initiator MUST use the
    resources it has negotiated. If it has negotiated the option to send
    immediate data or unsolicited data then it should do that to the limits
    allowed. If it has negotiated a PDU length, it must not send data PDUs less
    than the negotiated limit except for last one. While most implementation may
    do that for performance reasons, I would prefer defining this in the spec.
    
    -Ayman
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    > BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:58 AM
    > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
    > Subject: Unsolicited Data.
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but it is causing some
    > confusion.  The statement below implies that if immediate data has been
    > negotiated then the initiator MAY use it.
    >
    > "If ImmediateData is set to no and InitialR2T is set to no then the
    > initiator MUST NOT send unsolicited immediate data but MAY send one
    > unsolicited burst of Data-OUT PDUs."
    >
    > Therefore the target must wait for the initial burst of unsolicited data
    > before issuing the first R2T (if there is subsequent data).  If the
    > initiator decides not to send it then the target must timeout and
    > issue the
    > R2T for the initial data.  Can the spec be changed to state that if
    > unsolicited data has been negotiated, then the initiator MUST use it.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Matthew Burbridge
    > NIS-Bristol
    > Hewlett Packard
    > Telnet: 312 7010
    > E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
    >
    >
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:33 2001
6315 messages in chronological order