|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependenceThere was never a requirement to respond immediately. Julo
Bob, I agree. There is no requirement to respond to the keys received in the last batch in your next batch. Pat -----Original Message----- From: Robert D. Russell [mailto:rdr@io.iol.unh.edu] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:45 PM To: Robert Snively Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iSCSI: keys/parameter dependence Robert: You are, of course, absolutely correct. There is no mention in the current drafts of "order" applied to the processing of keys -- there used to be such an "order" requirement, but that went out when draft 8 came in, and is now ancient history. My apologies to the entire list for mistakenly bringing it back. I do, however, have a question about one small point in what you said: > If you want to order processing, you would > have to send them one at a time without the C bit set. Is this true? When the C bit is not set, there appears to be no requirement in the standard that the receiver is forced to reply to the keys it has received at that time -- it MUST reply to every key eventually, but just having the C bit = 0 does not seem to require it to reply then -- it could send an empty reply PDU, or could offer new keys of its own at that time and delay responding to anything until "everything is on the table". Comments/corrections please. Thanks Bob Russell > Picking up on this in the middle of a thread, I > find the following reply from Bob Russell > interesting: > > > > It's > > > probably irrelevant, since due to the introduction > > > of the C-bit, parameters can be accumulated and > > > processed one "batch" at a time, without any > > > specific order within the "batch" and they will > > > quite likely not be processed PDU by PDU. > > > > I don't see this either. Nowhere does the newly added text > > describing the C-bit say anything about doing away with the > > specific order of the key=value pairs within the "batch". > > Why should it -- even if you don't process PDU by PDU you still > > have to process batch by batch, a batch still has to be scanned > > to find key=value pairs, and the natural way to scan is from the > > beginning of the batch, since the next key starts after the > > delimiter of the previous key in the batch. > > This is also a non-issue. > > Skimming over rev 12, I have not found the word "order" > applied in the context of processing a string of > key=value pairs. While they > must clearly be parsed linearly, it is perfectly reasonable > to process the parsed values in any order, or even in > a vendor-specific order than makes sense to a particular > target. That is why key=value pairs are used in the > first place, so that one does not have to worry about > ordering. In this context, batching would be normal behavior > and out of order processing within a batch would also be > normal behavior. If you want to order processing, you would > have to send them one at a time without the C bit set.
Home Last updated: Wed Jun 05 16:18:34 2002 10524 messages in chronological order |