|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Negotiation clarifications still neededOne 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
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 |