Re: iSCSI: DLB [T.31]

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

Steve,

I assume you're describing the initiator perspective.  Even with the
current wording, target can ignore your status SNACK requests - 
since the error recovery support promised by the target with operational
ErrorRecoveryLevel=0 doesn't include SNACK support.  Changing 
the wording (which I believe is the right thing) wouldn't change your 
situation.

If you want to be able to selectively use the status recovery, you may
negotiate the ErrorRecoveryLevel=1 and not ever use the data recovery.
But you should be able to handle recovery R2Ts in such a case.
--
Mallikarjun

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Reames" <reames@diskdrive.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: iSCSI: DLB [T.31]


> From DLB's comments:
> 
>  >[T.31] 9.16.1  Type
>  >
>  >   An iSCSI target that does not support recovery within connection MAY
>  >   reject the status SNACK with a Reject PDU. If the target supports
>  >   recovery within connection, it MAY reject the SNACK after which it
>  >   MUST issue an Asynchronous Message PDU with an iSCSI event that indi-
>  >   cates "Request Logout".
>  >
>  > This should be conditioned on the operational ErrorRecoveryLevel of the
>  > session, not whether the target supports recovery within connection.
> 
> I would prefer that this not be conditioned on the ErrorRecoveryLevel. If I 
> am writing code, I may choose to support recovery-within-connection, but 
> not all the features that would be required to move me up to 
> ErrorRecoveryLevel 1. I would like SNACK and Reject PDUs to work properly 
> for my code, even though it is technically only "ErrorRecoveryLevel 0.5".
> As I read it, changing the wording would allow the target to ignore my 
> improved error recovery efforts unless I have a full ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 
> implementation. David, I doubt that is what you intended, so maybe you want 
> to word it a little differently.
> 
>