Re: iSCSI: response reason

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

> Mallikarjun,
> 
> The reference was clearly wrong (your note make it sound it was right)

On the contrary, the point of my note was that it orginally was incorrect,
and so also was 12-97 (your note at the bottom says it's "fixed" in 12-97).

> will fix the wording to match SPC with iSCSI

Thanks, it has to be consistent with SPC-3 - including the sense key 
information for all references to sense code information.
                                                                                                       
Regards. 
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
Cc: <Eddy@Quicksall.com>; <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: iSCSI: response reason


> Mallikarjun,
> 
> The reference was clearly wrong (your note make it sound it was right). I 
> will fix the wording to match SPC with iSCSI.
> 
> Julo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 06/08/2002 12:26 AM
> Please respond to "Mallikarjun C."
> 
>  
>         To:     <Eddy@Quicksall.com>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
>         cc:     <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
>         Subject:        Re: iSCSI: response reason
> 
>  
> 
> Julian,
> 
> I was about to send a message to you on this myself.
> 
> I think it's better to leave the wording in 12-96 as is, and
> change the "Reason" to "Response reason" in the table in
> section 9.4.6.2.
> 
> The problem with the changed wording in 12-97 is that
> it still does not mention the sense key, and states something
> that isn't accurate (for ex., there is no 'Sense of "protocol
> service CRC error" ', the SPC-3 name for it is "CRC error
> detected").  The more descriptive "reason" terminology is
> an iSCSI notion we had adopted quite a while ago.
> 
> I reason I had used "Response reason" as in index into the
> said table is to avoid repeating the CHECKCONDITION/Key/
> ASC/ASCQ information everywhere - but I had overlooked that the
> table doesn't use "response reason".  I'd recommend fixing just
> that.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Mallikarjun
> 
> Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> Networked Storage Architecture
> Network Storage Solutions
> Hewlett-Packard MS 5668
> Roseville CA 95747
> cbm@rose.hp.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
> To: <Eddy@Quicksall.com>
> Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:07 AM
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: response reason
> 
> 
> > thanks - it is fixed in 12-97 - Julo
> >
> >
> >
> >                       "Eddy Quicksall"
> >                       <Eddy@Quicksall.c        To:       Julian 
> Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> >                       om>                      cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> >                                                Subject:  iSCSI: response 
> reason
> >                       06/06/2002 11:28
> >                       PM
> >                       Please respond to
> >                       Eddy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 6.5 Digest Errors uses the phrase "iSCSI response reason" and
> > refers to section 9.4.3. But there is no such term used in that section.
> >
> > There is, however, a term used called "iSCSI service response". But,
> > section 6.5 is not talking about that.
> >
> > I believe section 6.5 is talking about the heading "reason" that appears 
> in
> > the 1st column of the table in section 9.4.6.2.
> >
> > So to clarify things, how about changing the table heading in 9.4.6.2 to
> > say "iSCSI Condition" and section 6.5 to say "iSCSI Condition (Section
> > 9.4.6.2  Sense Data)?
> >
> > The term "iSCSI Condition" is also compatible with the same term used in
> > the 2nd paragraph of 9.4.6.2.
> >
> > Eddy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>