SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI version 20 draft



    > > I disagree, Section 5.9.1.2 of SAM-2 (sam2r24) says:
    > > 
    > >   When a device server terminates a command with a CHECK CONDITION
    status,
    > >   either an CA or ACA condition is established within the task set.
    > > 
    > > That's sufficient language to cause establishment of ACA.
    > 
    > Completely agreed wrt ACA.  But let's be careful wrt UA interlock,
    
    Ok, that's progress - Rob's first paragraph on ACA is not needed.
    
    > > This creation of a new unit attention to deal with this situation
    > > (e.g., so that an initiator can control command ordering in these
    > > implicit termination cases without resorting to ACA) is a functional
    > > addition to iSCSI, complete with assignment of a new unit attention
    > > code; it does not appear to fix anything that is broken. 
    > 
    > IMHO, a UA is *not* a "functional addition" to iSCSI, a UA has been 
    > in the iSCSI spec for several months!
    > 
    > There are a couple of options I can think of to deal with this -
    > 
    > A. Rob's UA text with the original (rev19) ASC/ASCQ values.
    > B. Rob's UA text with no ASC/ASCQ values.
    > C. Rob's UA text with his proposed ASC/ASCQ values.
    > 
    > Perhaps your comment is specifically about Option.C.  I can agree with
    > you on that procedural aspect.  Out of A and B, I have a mild preference
    > for A (because I believe there's some value in consistency across
    > all targets, for an initiator), but I'd be okay with Option.B.
    
    I observe that option B is almost implied by the text in -20, which
    refers to UA for the next command for the 3 cases in which the I_T
    nexus stays up.  I have major problems with introducing new ASC/ASCQ
    values at this juncture, even though T10 apparently intends to provide
    them, making the -19 ASC/ASCQ values inappropriate to specify.
    
    I will see about taking the first sentence of Rob's second paragraph,
    stripping the ASC/ASCQ values, and seeing if it can be inserted via an
    RFC Editor note after IESG approval to restore the unit attention
    requirement situation that was present in -19, something like:
    
    	In cases a), b), and c), after the tasks are terminated, the
    	target MUST report a unit attention condition on the next command
    	processed on any connection for each affected I_T_L nexus.
    
    This would replace the UA text in parentheses:
    
    	UA for the next command on the I_T nexus in cases a), b), and c)
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    ----------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
    black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ----------------------------------------------------
    


Home

Last updated: Fri Jan 24 22:19:28 2003
12258 messages in chronological order