IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for bidirectional commands

wrstuden@wasabisystems.com Thu, 29 January 2004 22:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25499 for <ips-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:50:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmKyj-0000RY-Gu for ips-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:41 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0TMnf85001646 for ips-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:41 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmKyj-0000QT-56 for ips-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:41 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25472 for <ips-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKyg-0001ma-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:38 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKxl-0001fH-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:48:42 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKx8-0001Yv-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:48:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmKx7-0000BM-3X; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:48:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmKwl-0000AT-5E for ips@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:47:39 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25387 for <ips@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:47:35 -0500 (EST)
From: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKwi-0001Vr-00 for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:47:36 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKvn-0001Oc-00 for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:46:40 -0500
Received: from mononoke.wasabisystems.com ([151.199.66.145]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmKuv-0001Gs-00 for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:45:45 -0500
Received: by mononoke.wasabisystems.com (Postfix, from userid 1021) id 62BA640138; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:45:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:45:30 -0800
X-X-Sender: wrstuden@neverwinter.home-net.icnt.net
To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
Cc: ips@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for bidirectional commands
In-Reply-To: <401950D8.6060701@rose.hp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.53.0401291442150.912@neverwinter.home-net.icnt.net>
References: <OF8BE28E7E.7A596F11-ONC2256E2A.005225CB-C2256E2A.0053A4BC@il.ibm.com> <401950D8.6060701@rose.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: ips-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ips-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Mallikarjun C. wrote:

> Not sure why the initiator needs to be reported on the
> total # of R2Ts in the final response....I presume
> any mismatch in R2Ts is already factored into the status.
>
> _If_ we indeed want to include R2Ts, I think it would be
> necessary to make changes (10.4.8, E.2.2, and perhaps 6)
> because I believe the current spec semantics are clear
> that R2Ts are not included.

While I'll be honest that I don't understand _why_ R2Ts are factored into
the DataSN space along with Data-In PDUs, I've understood they were
comingled for over a year. I think it was about 16 months ago I asked
about this (before draft 20), and Julian explained that they shared the
same space.

So I don't think it's supposed to be something new.

Take care,

Bill

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email