SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI: NOP-In




    OK - thanks - Julo


    "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu>

    05/09/2002 04:44 PM
    Please respond to "Robert D. Russell"

           
            To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
            cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu, <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
            Subject:        iSCSI: NOP-In

           


    Julian:

    A request for two small changes in wording in draft 12:

    1) The last paragraph of section 9.19 says:

     "When a target sends a NOP-In as a "ping" (the Initiator
     Task Tag is 0xffffffff) it MUST NOT send any data in the
     data segment (DataSegmentLength MUST be 0)."

    I believe this should be restated to read simply:

     "When a target sends a NOP-In with an Initiator Task Tag
     value of 0xffffffff, it MUST NOT send any data in the data
     segment (DataSegmentLength MUST be 0)."

    The reason for this change is that the Initiator Task Tag can
    also be 0xffffffff when the target sends a NOP-In "as a means
    to carry a changed ExpCmdSN and/or MaxCmdSN".  This is not a
    "ping", but I believe there should not be any data in the data
    segment for this case either.


    2) For the same reason, I believe the last paragraph of section
    9.19.1, which now reads:

     "Whenever the NOP-In is sent as a "ping" to an initiator (not as
     a response to a NOP-Out), the StatSN field will contain the next
     StatSN.  However, StatSN for this connection is not advanced."

    should be changed to read:

     "The NOP-In always contains a valid StatSN field.  However,
     when the NOP-In is sent with an Initiator Task Tag value of
     0xffffffff, the StatSN field is not advanced."

    If this change is not made, it is unclear whether or not to advance
    the StatSN field when the target sends a NOP-In "as a means
    to carry a changed ExpCmdSN and/or MaxCmdSN".  I believe this case
    should be treated the same as when the target sends a NOP-In as a
    "ping".

    Thanks,

    Bob Russell
    InterOperability Lab
    University of New Hampshire
    rdr@iol.unh.edu
    603-862-3774







Home

Last updated: Thu May 09 18:18:27 2002
10034 messages in chronological order