iSCSI: Confusing wording in description of Status-Class

[Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>]

We have run into misinterpretations of the description of Status-Class
(section 9.13.5).  As written, it can be misread to say that
Redirection (Status-Class = 1) is an error, and initiators can treat a
redirection response from a target by failing the I/O rather than by
following the redirection pointer.

The current wording is:

     A non-zero Status-Class indicates an exception. In this case, Status-
     Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when handling 
     errors, without having to look at the Status-Detail.  The Status-
     Detail allows finer-grained error recovery for more sophisticated 
     initiators, as well as better information for error logging.
     ...
       1 - Redirection - indicates that the initiator must take further 
            action to complete the request. This is usually due to the 
            target moving to a different address. ...

I would propose the following rewording:

     A non-zero Status-Class indicates an exception. In this case, Status-
     Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when handling 
     exceptionss, without having to look at the Status-Detail.  The Status-
     Detail allows finer-grained exception handling for more sophisticated 
     initiators, as well as better information for error logging.
     ...
       1 - Redirection - indicates that the initiator MUST take further 
            action to complete the request. This is usually due to the 
            target moving to a different address. ...

The wording changes are: replace "error" by "exception" in the first
paragraph, since redirects are not errors, and use "MUST" rather than
"must" in the description of redirect.

       paul