RE: iSCSI: Small editorial update

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Eddy,

Where is the implication?  I am re-reading the text and I do not see it.
If it is in the order of presentation then would the reverse order imply write data before read?

Julo

Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> 06/24/2002 07:37 PM Please respond to Eddy Quicksall

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>         cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu, John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu         Subject:        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
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; John Hufferd; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: Small editorial update


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