SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: Seven minor draft 10 editorial comments



    Julo,
    
    Regarding comment number 2:
    
    <RecommendedReWrite>
    An initiator sees one "target image" across all
    connections within a session.  All target identifying
    elements, such as LUN, are identical regardless of the
    connection on which they are sent or received.  In
    addition, a target sees one "initiator image" across
    all connections within a session.  Initiator
    identifying elements, such as the Initiator Task Tag,
    are identical regardless of the connection on which
    they are sent or received.
    </RecommendedReWrite>
    
    
    I find the following sentence rather misleading:
    "Initiator identifying elements, such as the Initiator Task Tag,
    are identical regardless of the connection on which
    they are sent or received."
    
    I recommend to leave the old statement "as-is" or change it to:
    
    "Initiator identifying elements, such as the Initiator Task Tag,
    are global across the session regardless of the connection on which
    they are sent or received."
    
    Amir
    
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    Julian Satran
    Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:37 PM
    To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: iSCSI: Seven minor draft 10 editorial comments
    
    
    thanks - julo
    ----- Forwarded by Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM on 09-02-02 06:36 -----
    
                        Daniel Lee
                        <dan@danielsle       To:     ips@ece.cmu.edu
                        e.com>               cc:
                        Sent by:             Subject:     iSCSI: Seven minor
    draft 10 editorial
                        owner-ips@ece.        comments
                        cmu.edu
    
    
                        08-02-02 13:48
    
    
    
    
    
    Hi Julian,
    
    Here are some more comments on the draft 10 PDF file.
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #1
    
    On page 105 the "9.4" section heading is missing from
    the "Sync and Steering Layer and Performance" section.
     As a result, the next section entitled "Unsolicited
    Data and Performance" is mislabled as "9.4" instead of
    "9.5".
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #2
    
    There's a typo in Section 2.2.1, in the second
    paragraph on page 26.  I've extracted the paragraph
    below, the typo is beginning of the 4th sentence.
    
    <ParagraphWithTypo>
    Across all connections within a session, an initiator
    sees one "target image". All target identifying
    elements, such as LUN, are the same. In
    addition, a target sees one "initiator image" across
    all connections within a session. Initiator that
    identifying elements, such as the Initiator Task Tag,
    can be used to identify the same entity regardless of
    the connection on which they are sent or received.
    </ParagraphWithTypo>
    
    I recommend rewriting the paragraph as follows:
    
    <RecommendedReWrite>
    An initiator sees one "target image" across all
    connections within a session.  All target identifying
    elements, such as LUN, are identical regardless of the
    connection on which they are sent or received.  In
    addition, a target sees one "initiator image" across
    all connections within a session.  Initiator
    identifying elements, such as the Initiator Task Tag,
    are identical regardless of the connection on which
    they are sent or received.
    </RecommendedReWrite>
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #3
    
    Typo on page 234: 'Success' is misspelled as 'Sucess'
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #4
    
    For consistency and clarity reasons I recommend
    changing the following pseudocode at the top of page
    230 as follows.
    
    <originalCode>
    if (current StatSN is not expected) {
     Recover-Status-if-Possible(Connection, CurrentPDU);
    }
    if (current ExpCmdSN is not our NextCmdSN) {
     Retransmit-Command-if-Possible(Connection,
     CurrentPDU.ExpCmdSN);
    }
    </originalCode>
    
    <suggestedChange>
    if (CurrentPDU.StatSN is not expected) {
     Recover-Status-if-Possible(Connection, CurrentPDU);
    }
    if (CurrentPDU.ExpCmdSN != Session.NextCmdSN) {
     Retransmit-Command-if-Possible(Connection,
     CurrentPDU.ExpCmdSN);
    }
    </suggestedChange>
    
    In addition, the 'Session.NextCmdSN' should probably
    be 'Connection.SessionReference.NextCmdSN', but it's
    not used this way elsewhere in the pseudocode and it's
    easy enough to understand the way it's currently used.
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #5
    
    In the pseudocode for the previous Editorial Comment
    (on page 230) and in the 'struct Session' definition
    on page 222, it might make sense to change 'NextCmdSN'
    to just 'CmdSN' for consistency reasons (since on page
    28 it says 'CmdSn always contains the number to be
    assigned next').
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #6
    
    The 'n' in 'CmdSn' on page 28 (referenced in Editorial
    Comment #4) should be capitalized.
    
    Minor Editorial Comment #7
    (Note: I'll stop my Editorial Comments with this one
    since 7 is a lucky number.)
    
    I suggest the following line on page 29 be either
    modified as follows or removed completely to make it
    less confusing to first time readers of the spec.
    
    <originalText>
    -If the PDU MaxCmdSN is less than the PDU ExpCmdSN-1
    (in Serial Arithmetic Sense), they are both ignored.
    </originalText>
    
    <suggestedChange>
    -If the PDU MaxCmdSN is less than the PDU ExpCmdSN-1
    (in Serial Arithmetic Sense), the target has made an
    error generating this PDU so both fields are ignored.
    </suggestedChange>
    
    The reason I suggest this change is that it isn't
    until a few lines down the in the spec that you learn
    'The target MUST NOT transmit a MaxCmdSN that is less
    than the last ExpCmdSN.'  (note: the previous line
    might be clearer as 'The target MUST NOT transmit a
    MaxCmdSN that is less than ExpCmdSN-1 (in Serial
    Arithmetic Sense)'.
    
    Regards,
    
    Daniel Lee
    Unemployed Person
    dan@danielslee.com
    "iSCSI, therefore I am"
    
    
    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
    http://greetings.yahoo.com
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Sun Feb 10 13:18:02 2002
8719 messages in chronological order