Re: iSCSI - Recovery Levels

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

To those interested in this bit of editing confusion...

Good news is that Julian and I are still thinking the
same on error recovery plans for rev08 :-)  I misunderstood 
what Julian implied when he outlined only two levels, when
we had 0-4 levels in London proposals.  Julian was 
in fact suggesting London proposals to be put in rev08.

Apologies to Julian since my quick note of surprise seems 
to have surprised him.
--
Mallikarjun 


Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions Organization
MS 5668	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville.
cbm@rose.hp.com



>Julian,
>
>As per our conversation over the phone last Friday (8/28),
>I thought I am doing this error recovery editing (in fact 
>I am mostly done to send the doc in a few hours to you!).
>
>Also, I thought we both agreed that I would capture what 
>was presented in London in rev08 and state clearly that it's 
>still under debate.  That is exactly what I summarized and sent
>an email to ips on Friday afternoon!
>
>*Please* allow us to stick to this plan, so I can manage 
>to complete my editing today.  I do not want to get into 
>a debate on the striation details *until* we publish rev08 -
>which I thought we plan to publish by tomorrow.
>
>Regards.
>--
>Mallikarjun 
>
>
>Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
>Networked Storage Architecture
>Network Storage Solutions Organization
>MS 5668	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville.
>cbm@rose.hp.com
>
>
>>John,
>>
>>It is only a placeholder - I will put in a TBD there too!
>>
>>Julo
>>
>>John Hufferd@IBMUS
>>03-09-2001 22:14
>>
>>To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
>>cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
>>From: John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
>>Subject:  Re: iSCSI - Recovery Levels  (Document link: Julian Satran -
>>      Mail)
>>
>>Julian,
>>The way you have written it, only two levels can be specified, since level
>>one contains all the currently know levels.  Perhaps, you need to leave
>>some space between Zero and Everything currently known, by assigning
>>Everything to be number 2, or, 3 etc.  If we define it to be the number 2
>>for instance then it is possible that we only define 0 and 2 but it would
>>leave room for a 1 if one was defined.
>>
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>John L. Hufferd
>>Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
>>IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
>>Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
>>Home Office (408) 997-6136
>>Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
>>
>>
>>Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL@ece.cmu.edu on 09/03/2001 06:59:38 AM
>>
>>Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
>>
>>
>>To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
>>cc:
>>Subject:  iSCSI - Recovery Levels
>>
>>
>>
>>There seems to be consensus around the fact the recovery leves are good and
>>no
>>clear consensus about hpow many should there be (2 or 3).
>>
>>As there is no chance to settle this until 08 gets out I suggest
>>intrdocucing
>>a generic key=value pair (RecoveryLevel) and remove the existing keys
>>(CommmandFailoverSupport and CommandReplaySupport).
>>
>>RecoveryLevel will be defined as follows:
>>
>>01   RecoveryLevel
>>
>>   Use: LO
>>   Who can send: Initiator and Target
>>
>>   RecoveryLevel=<0 to x>
>>
>>   Default is 0.
>>
>>   Initiator and target negotiate the recovery level supported.
>>   The minimum of the two values is selected.
>>
>>   Recovery levels represent a combination of recovery capabilities.
>>   Each recovery level includes all the capabilities of the lower recovery
>>   levels and adds to them some new ones.
>>
>>   In the recovery mechanisms descriptions some specific recovery
>>   capabilities are used.
>>
>>   Those are mapped to levels as follows:
>>
>>      0 - SessionRecovery
>>      1 - CommandFailoverSupport and CommandReplaySupport
>>      [TBD]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Julo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>