SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI: DLB [T.31]




    The wording was changed to reflect operationallevel (not implemented level) 3 days ago!

    Julo


    Black_David@emc.com
    Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

    07/10/2002 10:56 AM
    Please respond to Black_David

           
            To:        reames@diskdrive.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
            cc:        
            Subject:        RE: iSCSI: DLB [T.31]

           


    Steve,

    >  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.

    Actually, it was what I intended when I made that comment, BUT, I had not
    considered the scenario you describe above ... and so, I now agree with
    you.  Therefore I'll withdraw my [T.31] comment provided that the
    possibility of multiple "ErrorRecoveryLevel 0.5" levels of support is
    described in the overview section to be added on error recovery.

    Thanks,
    --David
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------



    • Follow-Ups:
      • CHAP sequence
        • From: "Ambrish Verma" <averma@marantinetworks.com>


Home

Last updated: Thu Jul 11 16:18:56 2002
11276 messages in chronological order