Re: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft

[<[e-mail]>]

<WG chair hat off>

In that case, let's at least get the explanation for the SHOULD right ;-).

Here's a suggestion ...

OLD
  ACA helps preserve ordered command execution in the presence of
  errors. As iSCSI can have many commands in-flight between
  initiator and target, iSCSI initiators and targets SHOULD support
  ACA.
NEW
  Some SCSI initiator implementations use ACA to enforce ordered
  command execution during recovery from errors.  In order to support
  error recovery in such SCSI initiators, iSCSI initiators and targets
  SHOULD support ACA.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 8:51 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 1) while not common, the hosts that use it, do need it;
> 2) the original 3720 text contains a SHOULD; and
> 3) there is no good reason for us to be weakening this statement.
> 
> 	Fred Knight
> 	NetApp
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [storm] WG Last Call comments on consolidated iSCSI draft
> 
> <...text removed...>
> 
> [D] Section 10.2 contains a "SHOULD" requirement for ACA
> (Auto-Contingent Allegiance) support.
> As ACA support in SCSI initiators is not common, I suggest weakening
> this to a MAY requirement.
> 
>