[Ips] iSCSI: Terminating active tasks

"Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall_iVivity_iSCSI@comcast.net> Tue, 27 January 2004 16:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12779 for <ips-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:50:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlWPN-0001Oo-2n for ips-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:49 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0RGnnUP005374 for ips-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:49 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlWPM-0001Ob-Q2 for ips-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:48 -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 LAA12758 for <ips-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWPL-0005rB-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:47 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWNe-0005ln-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:48:03 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWMo-0005hd-00 for ips-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:47:10 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlWMf-00018W-7L; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:47:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlWMU-00018A-Le for ips@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:46:50 -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 LAA12694 for <ips@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:46:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWMS-0005gK-00 for ips@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:46:48 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWLW-0005dd-00 for ips@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:45:51 -0500
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlWKt-0005YR-00 for ips@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:45:11 -0500
Received: from ivvt2dxrc11 (c-66-177-51-158.se.client2.attbi.com[66.177.51.158]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040127164438012003a479e> (Authid: esquicksall); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:44:38 +0000
Message-ID: <002001c3e4f4$df46d420$0303a8c0@ivvt2dxrc11>
From: Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall_iVivity_iSCSI@comcast.net>
To: ips@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:44:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C3E4CA.F60A1B10"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Subject: [Ips] iSCSI: Terminating active tasks
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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60

Suppose an active task is terminated due to a lost connection (item b below). When the connection is re-instated, should the active tasks get a check condition?

Note that there appeared to be a clarification added to draft 20+errata but that didn't make it into the final draft (as I remember, there were other objections to the errata). I don't know if the new wording is incorrect or if it is implied by draft 20's wording and therefore not necessary.

Can someone please give me your interpretation of the following?

draft 20:

If the tasks terminated in the above cases a), b, c) and d)are SCSI
tasks, they must be internally terminated as if with CHECK CONDITION
status. This status is only meaningful for appropriately handling
the internal SCSI state and SCSI side effects with respect to
ordering because this status is never communicated back as a
terminating status to the initiator. However additional actions may
have to be taken at SCSI level depending on the SCSI context as
defined by the SCSI standards (e.g., queued commands and ACA, UA for
the next command on the I_T nexus in cases a), b), and c) etc. - see
[SAM] and [SPC3]).

draft 20+errata:

[--same as above to here--] (e.g., queued commands and ACA, 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 etc. - see [SAM] and
[SPC3]).

Eddy