SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed




    One piece of information that will help you parsing.
    In fact the fact that convinced me to change position is realizing that adding a 0 byte after the last key=value
    is not enough to distinguish the last key=value you have to have at least two in the absence of the C bit.

    As for the rest I will make the text adjustements over (my) weekend.

    Julo


    pat_thaler@agilent.com

    05/30/2002 10:07 PM
    Please respond to pat_thaler

           
            To:        John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
            cc:        wrstuden@wasabisystems.com, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, cbm@rose.hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu, mkrikis@yahoo.com
            Subject:        RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed

           


    I can't parse (on page 68):

    A value is whatever follows the = that follows the key-name up to a
    zero-byte delimiter that separates a key=value pair from the next or
    up to the end of data (for the last key=value pair if the PDU C flag
    bit is set to 0).

    I think I know what he meant but I can't get the text to parse clearly.
    It is trying to do too much in one sentence.
    How about:
    A value is whatever follows the = that follows the key-name up to a
    zero-byte delimiter. The zero-byte delimiter separates a key=value
    pair from the next and follows the last key=value pair when the PDU C flag
    bit is set to 0.

    The text on the bottom of page 72 is sufficient to produce the behavior
    we want but it doesn't make clear the reason for having the C bit. We
    don't need the C bit to know that the last value was incomplete. We need
    it to allow us to prepare a multi-PDU buffer of key-value pairs for
    transmission.
    How about:
    Key=value pairs may span PDU boundaries.

    The C flag bit allows an initiator or target to prepare a set of
    key values larger than the PDU size for transmission and send the set in
    multiple
    PDUs ensuring that it will not receive key-value pairs while those PDUs are
    being transmitted. An initiator or target wishing to do this indicates that
    more
    text follows by setting the C flag bit in the Text Request or Text
    Response to 1. A target or initiator receiving a Text Request or
    Text Response, respectively, with the C flag bit set to 1 MUST answer with a
    Text Response or Text Request with no data segment (DataSegmentLength
    0). A Text Request or Text Response PDU having the C flag
    bit set to 1 MUST NOT have the F bit set to 1.

    In 4 the bit is called the C flag bit. In 9.10 and 9.11, it is called the C
    bit.
    It should be called the same thing everywhere. Otherwise it becomes hard to
    search for. As noted earlier the bit also needs to be added to 9.12 and
    9.13.

    With that done, I am content with the text though much the same thing
    could be accomplished by enlarging PDU size during negotiation. The C bit
    just builds a super-PDU with pacing by the partner.

    Regards,
    Pat

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:23 PM
    To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
    Cc: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com; pat_thaler@agilent.com; Julian Satran;
    cbm@rose.hp.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; mkrikis@yahoo.com
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed



    I take it that we are all happy with the current C bit stuff (if it also is
    in Login).  I think that is the hand off token.

    .
    .
    .
    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


    pat_thaler@agilent.com@ece.cmu.edu on 05/29/2002 04:15:57 PM

    Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


    To:    wrstuden@wasabisystems.com, pat_thaler@agilent.com
    cc:    Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, cbm@rose.hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu,

           mkrikis@yahoo.com
    Subject:    RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still needed




    From: Bill Studenmund
    <snip>
    What do we want to decide?

    Bill,

    As I mention in the response to John, I would like to see proposed text for
    specifying the hand-off.

    I think one could approach this by handing back and forth the right to make
    negotiation offers and leave to the implementations whether they send empty
    text negotiations or responses and declarations when they don't have the
    right to make negotiation offers. I think the hand-off should be based on a
    bit flag rather than based on whether the last PDU received ended in a
    complete key-value pair.

    Once people have had a chance to see the proposal, I would like to hear
    opinions beyond those of the few people who have been active in this
    discussion.

    Regards,
    Pat






Home

Last updated: Sat Jun 08 11:18:42 2002
10608 messages in chronological order