SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    questions about draft-chadalapaka-command-ordering-00.txt



    
    I thank the authors for creating a document which
    "... provides guidance to system designers on how true command
    ordering solutions can be built based on iSCSI."
    
    As a systems designer, I welcome such an effort.  I find the command
    ordering and recovery issues to be the most confusing aspect of the
    iSCSI standard.
    
    I have a few questions about the draft...
    
    1) I think that the draft currently implies the section below from iSCSI
    is not always a MUST.  Is this the authors intent?
    
    (From draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-20.txt)
    3.2.2.1  Command Numbering and Acknowledging
    ...
       On any connection, the iSCSI initiator MUST send the commands in
       increasing order of CmdSN, except for commands that are
       retransmitted due to digest error recovery and connection recovery.
    
    (From draft-chadalapaka-command-ordering-00.txt)
    3.3  Ordered command delivery
    3.3.1  Issues
         There has been a lot of  debate on this particular aspect in the IPS
         WG.  Most of the debate was centered on two specific questions -
    ...
               b)  Should [iSCSI] require initiators and targets to enforce
                  command ordering?
    ...
         The final resolution of b) in section 3.3.1 by the iSCSI protocol
         designers was in favor of not requiring the initiators to use com-
         mand ordering always.  This resolution is reflected in dropping the
         ACA requirement on the initiators, and allowing ABORT TASK TMF to
         plug command holes etc.  The net result can be discerned by a care-
         ful reader of [iSCSI] - the onus of command ordering is on the iSCSI
         targets, while the initiators may or may not use command ordering.
    
    
    2)  I think the following text from section 6 implies that implementations
    should not comply with iSCSI, is this the authors intent as well?  If so
    wouldn't this lead to interoperability problems?
    
        "In general, command ordering is automatically enforced if targets and
         initiators comply with the iSCSI specification.  However, here are
         certain things for the iSCSI initiators and targets to take note
    of...."
    
    I would appreciate any comments--they would greatly help me with my work.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Aaron
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Feb 25 20:19:23 2003
12368 messages in chronological order