|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: PDU formatsJulian: I would like to request 3 small changes in the format of some of the PDUs. One of the design features that you have employed very successfully to date is to have a given field, such as the "Initiator Task Tag" for example, always appear in the same position (bytes 16-19) in any PDU in which it appears. This makes it easy to understand, to implement, and to debug. However, a few small inconsistencies in the application of this design principle have crept in with draft 7, and I would like to propose that we fix them. 1. In draft 6 the SCSI Response PDU had one Status/Response field in byte 3 -- in draft 7-90 it now has a Status field in byte 2 and a Response field in byte 3. In draft 6 the Data-in PDU also had a Status field in byte 3, and in draft 7-90 it is still in byte 3, with byte 2 unused (reserved). Would you please either: a. Reorder the bytes in the SCSI Response PDU so that the Status field will be in byte 3 (so it is consistent with the Data-in PDU) and the Response field will be in byte 2; or b. Move the status field in the Data-in PDU from byte 3 to byte 2 (so it remains consistent with the SCSI Response PDU). I would prefer alternative a. because it would leave the Data-in PDU unchanged for drafts 6, 7 and 8, and the SCSI Response PDU has to change in any case. However, obviously either solution would work. 2. In draft 7-90, a field called "Response" appears in 3 PDUs: a. In byte 36 of the Task Management Response PDU. b. In byte 36 of the Logout Response PDU. c. In byte 2 (if my request 1a above is taken) in the SCSI Response PDU. This is clearly inconsistent with a and b. Since bytes 2 and 3 are currently unused (reserved) in both the Task Management Response PDU and the Logout Response PDU, the simplest solution would be to move the "Response" field in those 2 PDUs to byte 2 in order to be consistent with the SCSI Response PDU. To keep the design clean, the new "Qualifier" field in the Task Management Response PDU should probably also be moved to byte 3. 3. In draft 7-90 the Login and Login Response PDUs have been modified with the introduction of the T, C, and CNxSG fields in byte 37. However, in the Login Response PDU these fields overlay the Status-Detail field, which is also in byte 37. Although the way to interpret this field is uniquely determined by the context, it is context dependent and I believe that this will lead to a lot of needless errors in coding, and that it also makes debugging more difficult, because the use of this byte changes during the login phase exchanges. This means that you can't always look at it the same way. To avoid this overlay, would you please move the new fields (T, C, and CNxSG) to one of the currently unused bytes. Many bytes (2, 10-11, 20-23, 38-39, 40-47) are currently unused in both of these PDUs, so there would appear to be no urgent need to overlay the new fields on top of an existing field in order to save space. Thanks, Bob Russell InterOperability Lab University of New Hampshire rdr@iol.unh.edu 603-862-3774
Home Last updated: Wed Sep 12 19:17:09 2001 6527 messages in chronological order |