|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: iSCSI: Small editorial update
Julo,
At
least, I don't think is is a good idea to leave an implication that is not
correct. I'm referring to the fact that 9.7.5 clearly implies that a
bidirectional command must have data-in before data-out.
Eddy
Eddy - the text
says already "... the input PDU number" it repeats the sharing statement
- I think it has enough to get things clear. I have changed bi-directional to bidirectional.
Julo
| Eddy Quicksall
<eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>
06/24/2002 04:35 PM Please respond to Eddy Quicksall
| To:
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, John Hufferd/San
Jose/IBM@IBMUS
cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu,
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI:
Small editorial update
|
The 1st paragraph needs a little change too. It
implies that a bi-directional command must have data-in before data-out. If
you had data-out first and R2Ts were being used, the DataSN would start
with the last R2TSN + 1.
And the 1st paragraph of 9.8.1 should
probably say "starting with 0 for unidirectional commands" instead of
"starting with 0".
Also, SAM-2 uses the term "bidirectional" not
"bi-directional". Can you change that too?
Eddy
-----Original
Message----- From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent:
Monday, June 24, 2002 1:07 AM To: John Hufferd Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu;
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: iSCSI: Small editorial
update
OK -
Julo
|---------+----------------------------> |
| "John Hufferd"
| | |
<hufferd@us.ibm.c| | |
om> | |
| Sent by:
| | |
owner-ips@ece.cmu| | |
.edu
| | |
| |
|
| | |
06/24/2002 12:34 | |
| AM
| | |
Please respond to| | |
"John Hufferd" | |
|
| |---------+---------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------| | | |
To: "Julian Satran"
<Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> | | cc:
ips@ece.cmu.edu | |
Subject: iSCSI: Small editorial
update | | | | |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------|
Julian, I
think we need to add a clause that denotes that a bi-directional command is
being addressed in the second paragraph under 9.7.5 in your working draft
14. We should add the expression ", in the context of
bidirectional commands, ". The following would be the revised
paragraph.
"R2T and Data-In PDUs, in the context of bi-directional
commands, share the numbering sequence (see Section 2.2.2.3 Data
Sequencing)."
I know it should be obvious when one really thinks about
it, however, it make the intent easier to
understand.
. . . 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
Home
Last updated: Mon Jun 24 16:18:48 2002
10961 messages in chronological order
|