|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: Non Spanning keyOK, (note the change of subject. So we can focus on one thing at a time.) I am fine with what Mallikarjun said, and do not fine it a problem to do. I propose that Mallikarjun's approach be our closure. That is, Keywords (including the =) do not span PDUs. Can I get agreement. If so we can then move to the next issue. . . . John L. Hufferd Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) IBM/SSG San Jose Ca Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702 Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com Martins Krikis <mkrikis@yahoo.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 05/24/2002 05:45:09 PM Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed Mallikarjun wrote: > 2. Seems to me that we need to stipulate that only > key values > may straddle PDU boundaries - key names (ideally > inclusive > of "=") shall not. That should avoid requiring > blank PDUs. Definitely inclusive of "=". Otherwise there are no strict guarantees that the whole key has been received (we may have keys that are prefixes to other keys in future, and vendor keys may be like that). I can implement it and live with it if that's what people decide on. I just want people to understand that it is conceptually a more complex aproach than requiring strictly blank PDUs and having a data-end flag. (Even if we don't add a new flag and decide data-end by looking for NUL-s at the end, we get a cleaner scheme.) Allowing non-blank PDUs gives better bandwith utilization under presumably rare circumstances (all pairs not fitting), but introduces more complexity for your everyday case. If we only stipulate that no key ever gets broken, then there is the following "clumsiness" required. When "originating" a key=value pair, it has to be checked whether the key will fit fully in the PDU or not, and if not, then "originating" must be postponed. We also need either a more elaborate state for the key (to mark key as received but value as not; so it is not processable yet, nor originatable anymore), or for each key=value pair being originated, key has to be checked against the buffer that would hold the "leftover stuff" from the just received PDU, otherwise we may illegally originate it. Doable, but not clean. I still think that letting the whole set-of-pairs go through (no matter over how many PDUs spread) before the other side is allowed to process them is cleanest. Martins Krikis, Intel Corp. Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and may not be those of my employer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
Home Last updated: Sun May 26 12:18:53 2002 10328 messages in chronological order |