|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of TasksComments below. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 Roseville CA 95747 cbm@rose.hp.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com> To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks > There are two sections titled Implicit Termination of Tasks but they are > slightly different. Which is correct? Both are correct and consistent. > > Section 6.5 lists 4 items but section 10.14.5 only lists two. I'm seeing three in 10.14.5..... Even though 6.5 lists all the four cases, it makes it clear that the check condition is to be employed only for three cases - and only those three are listed by 10.14.5. Perhaps the text could have been a little bit more explicit about this distinction. > > If 6.5 is correct, why is item D not included in the unit attention? SAM-3 > says: It's not so much a SAM issue. The issue we considered was how to ensure iSCSI-standard ordered delivery of commands in the face of errors. The ordered delivery of commands does not make sense for case (d) - that of creating a new session - ordering is not guaranteed anyway across sessions.
Home Last updated: Mon Jan 06 16:19:03 2003 12113 messages in chronological order |