|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Seven minor draft 10 editorial commentsJulo, 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 |