Re: iSCSI: Text Request ITT/TTT

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Eddy,

The format and usage of ITT and TTT are the same for all commands (and 
implementations can make use of this commonality).

For text commands we just did not want to make an exception.

On the long run we may find that today restriction of one text command per 
connection (that we introduced in order to avoid overlapping parameter 
negotiation contexts) could be removed (e.g. use a lock for negotiations 
and use other keys for actions).

Regards,
Julo




"Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
23-10-01 17:59
Please respond to "Eddy Quicksall"

 
        To:     <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        iSCSI: Text Request ITT/TTT

 

Section 3.10.2 Initiator Task Tag says:

 If the command is sent as part of a sequence of text requests and
 responses, the Initiator Task Tag MUST be the same for all the
 requests within the sequence (similar to linked SCSI commands).

Why is this restriction imposed? Since the Text Requests can't be
overlapped, then there is no need for this.

If this restriction must exist, then why doesn't it exist for the TTT as
well?

The target does not need to interpret the ITT and the initiator does not
need to interpret the TTT (or does it?).

By removing the restriction, the initiator could use the ITT as an
indication of where to pick up with the next Text Response for long text
exchanges. Also, the target could use the TTT the same way.

Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com