RE: StatSN and overlapped commands

[wrstuden@wasabisystems.com]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Paul Koning wrote:

> Rather than clutter up the spec with more notes that say something is
> an error you can ignore, I'd rather keep it simple.
>
> I believe it's agreed that the case we're talking about is an
> initiator bug.
>
> Do we need to describe all possible bugs, and all allowed responses to
> such bugs?  I don't think so.  The spec should describe correct
> behavior, and required consistency checks.
>
> There's an infinite number of possible wrong behaviors that can be
> generated by bugs.  I believe this should just be covered by the
> standard *unwritten* rule that, if you mess up the protocol, you may
> not get the answer you were hoping for.

I'm happy with that too. My main concern, which you agree with, is to make
sure we don't say that this ITT re-use (w/o status ack) is something the
target MUST be happy with. Saying, "You get what you get," is fine.

Take care,

Bill