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

Hi Pat,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com] 
> Sent: 02 February 2004 18:02
> To: rmangamuri@istor.com; ksandars@elipsan.com; 
> Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com; cbm@rose.hp.com
> Cc: ips@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for 
> bidirectional commands
> 
> 
> I don't think "(read)" should be in there. We don't usually 
> put read after Data-In. Also, I would rather have it a 
> separate sentence. 
> 
> For read commands, the number of Data-In PDUs the target has 
> sent for the command. For bidirectional commands, the number 
> of Data-In PDUs and R2T PDUs the target has sent for the command.
> 
> or 
> 
> For bidirectional commands, the number of Data-In PDUs and 
> R2T PDUs the target has sent for the command. For all other 
> commands, the number of Data-In PDUs the target has sent for 
> the command.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I lean toward leaving 
> 10.4.8 as it is and changing 3.2.2 to disentangle DataSN from 
> R2TSN. Is it really worth these gymnastics to reduce 
> bidirectional command context by one variable?
> 

This would affect Data/R2T SNACK processing, but that's probably
a good thing. Perhaps explicit Data SNACK and R2T SNACK types are
All that is needed. But is this needed, or just a can-o-worms?

Cheers,
Ken Sandars
Elipsan UK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramesh Mangamuri [mailto:rmangamuri@istor.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:27 PM
> To: Ken Sandars; Julian Satran; Mallikarjun C.
> Cc: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1); ips@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for 
> bidirectional commands
> 
> 
> Hello Ken/Julian:
> 
> I have another proposal here for section 10.4.8:
> 
> Suggestion ---------------------------
> 
> 10.4.8  ExpDataSN
> 
>    The number of Data-In (read) PDUs (for bidirectional 
> commands this is R2Ts + Data-Ins) the target has sent for the command.
> 
>    This field is reserved if the response code is not Command 
> Completed
>    at Target, or the command is Write only command.
> 
> 
> How does this sound???
> 
> -Rams
>    
> 	
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Sandars [mailto:ksandars@elipsan.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:57 PM
> To: 'Julian Satran'; 'Mallikarjun C.'
> Cc: pat_thaler@agilent.com; ips@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for 
> bidirectional commands
> 
> Hi Julo,
> 
> As requested, two alternative proposals for section 10.4.8:
> 
> Suggestion 1 --------------------------
> 
> 10.4.8  ExpDataSN
> 
>    The number of R2T and Data-In (read) PDUs the target has 
> sent for the
>    command.
> 
>    This field is reserved if the response code is not Command 
> Completed
>    at Target.
> 
> 
> Suggestion 2 --------------------------
> 
> 10.4.8  ExpDataSN
> 
>    The number of R2T and Data-In (read) PDUs the target has 
> sent for the
>    command.
> 
>    This field is reserved if the response code is not Command 
> Completed
>    at Target or the target sent no Data-In PDUs for the command.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I'm more than happy with any answer which clarifies when the 
> field is reserved.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ken Sandars
> Elipsan UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ips-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ips-admin@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mallikarjun C.
> > Sent: 30 January 2004 20:29
> > To: Ken Sandars
> > Cc: 'Julian Satran'; pat_thaler@agilent.com; ips@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ips] iSCSI: Correct value for ExpDataSN for 
> > bidirectional commands
> > 
> > 
> > Ken,
> > 
> > I am not sure we need to restrict the wording
> > to commands with at least one Data-In PDU.  Do
> > you see an issue?
> > 
> > In any case, if you have a specific wording suggestion, 
> please send it 
> > to Julian directly (he owns the pen).
> > 
> > Regards.
> > 
> > Mallikarjun
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ken Sandars wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Mallikarjun,
> > > 
> > > One final clarification request, and  I can sleep easy on
> > this topic!
> > > 
> > > Will the new wording for 10.4.8 be more general to indicate that
> > > ExpDataSN is the number of DataIn and R2T PDUs that were sent?
> > > 
> > > Is this field only valid for commands which have at least
> > one Data-In
> > > PDU?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks again,
> > > Ken Sandars
> > > Elipsan UK
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ips mailing list
> > Ips@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> Ips@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 
> 
> 

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