|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: iSCSI: Question about ErrorRecoveryLevel
One more
clarification - in the meeting on Monday (report/results)
coming to
the list shortly the rough consensus in the room was:
- If an
implementation wants to support only one of the mechanisms
required at ERL1, it's ok to negotiate
ERL 0 (can't negotiate
1 because that would require both
mechanisms) and then try
the mechanism
of interest, but the implementation MUST be
prepared
for the attempt to fail because the
other party doesn't support it.
Thanks,
--David
Bill - Yes ERL 1 implies both and at the end of the
chapter the classes associated with the level are clearly stated. Julo
| Bill Studenmund
<wrstuden@wasabisystems.com> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
07/17/2002 03:04 AM
| To:
"Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com> cc:
Parthi <pamanick@npd.hcltech.com>,
<ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: iSCSI:
Question about ErrorRecoveryLevel
|
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Mallikarjun C.
wrote:
> > Every where within-command and within-connection
recovery is discussed, > > each of them is described as optional. The
quote above doesn't say that > > level 1 MUST consist of both
within-connection and within-command > > recovery. > > [
The error in grammar is already fixed in the working version. ]
Cool, I
still haven't grabbed -15 yet.
> The reason MUST language was not
used is because the text in question is > defining the terminology, but
is not phrased in such a way as to place requirements > on
implementations. It is similar to several terminology descriptions in
chapter 2. > > My intent when I wrote that text was - because the
negotiation of the > ErrorRecoveryLevel follows the regular negotiation
rules (i.e. don't originate > a proposal that you cannot support, and
the result function is "minimum"), no > additional MUST/SHOULD/MAY
language is necessary. But if you recommend > explicit text, I
suggest we add the following at the end of the last para of > text in
5.13 -
That though doesn't answer my question. :-) The main question is
does ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 imply both within-command and
within-connection support, or does it imply at least one and maybe
both?
If anything, the fact that ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 implies all of 0,
and 2 implies all of 1 and 0, is clear in the draft now.
> When a
defined value of ErrorRecoveryLevel is proposed by an > originator in a
text negotiation, the originator MUST support the > functionality
defined for the ErrorRecoveryLevel or functionality
^^ Is this supposed to be "and"?
> corresponding to any defined
value numerically less than the proposed. > When a defined value of
ErrorRecoveryLevel is returned by a responder > in a text negotiation,
the responder MUST support the functionality > corresponding to the
ErrorRecoveryLevel it is accepting.
If "and" is appropriate, then
shouldn't we add, "and all numerically lower levels" to the end of the
paragraph?
I'm happy with ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 == both
within-connection and within-command recovery. I'm also happy with
ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 == within-command, within-connection, or both (and
ErrorRecoveryLevel 2 being both). I just think with the amount of,
"optional," used in conjunction with error recovery that it's not clear
which case we want.
Home
Last updated: Wed Jul 17 14:19:08 2002
11360 messages in chronological order
|