Re: [storm] On Virtual Address, Steering Address, Base Offset, Tagged Base Offset and more

Michael Ko <Michael@huaweisymantec.com> Fri, 15 July 2011 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael@huaweisymantec.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D5C21F8C5E for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWSvgophYfK0 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta1.huaweisymantec.com (mta1.huaweisymantec.com [218.17.155.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5552021F8C50 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_5Fx/h/86AnEUzhRbzQs1lg)"
Received: from hstml02-in.huaweisymantec.com ([172.26.3.41]) by hstga01-in.huaweisymantec.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.03 (built Apr 24 2009; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0LOE00M034XP1V70@hstga01-in.huaweisymantec.com> for storm@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 04:01:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from m90003900a ([10.47.154.218]) by hstml02-in.huaweisymantec.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.03 (built Apr 24 2009; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0LOE0001A4WK2R00@hstml02-in.huaweisymantec.com> for storm@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 04:00:25 +0800 (CST)
Message-id: <BA4F655FDD37475388C98916C3961711@china.huawei.com>
From: Michael Ko <Michael@huaweisymantec.com>
To: Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com>, storm@ietf.org
References: <ED870C9971DC4A6EBA7FC6CC9A9A4E68@china.huawei.com> <F83812DF4B59B9499C1BC978336D91745EE0405B@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:00:19 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Subject: Re: [storm] On Virtual Address, Steering Address, Base Offset, Tagged Base Offset and more
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:00:27 -0000

Yes.  I will scan all occurrences of "virtual address" and "tagged offset" in the current draft to update them to the latest terminology and usage.

Mike
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tom Talpey 
  To: Michael Ko ; storm@ietf.org 
  Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:14 PM
  Subject: RE: [storm] On Virtual Address, Steering Address, Base Offset, Tagged Base Offset and more


  Sounds good. I assume you'll scan the document for other instances of the term "address" etc. I also spot a few uses of the term "points to" in 6.9 and 7.3.1. The one in 7.3.1 is associated with some questionable text indicating that the arithmetic is not needed (Base Offset == Tagged Offset). I assume you will investigate those as part of tightening up the TO calculation rules..

   

  Tom.

   

  From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ko
  Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:06 PM
  To: storm@ietf.org
  Subject: [storm] On Virtual Address, Steering Address, Base Offset, Tagged Base Offset and more

   

  I will combine my responses to Mallikarjun and Tom in one e-mail.

   

  I am fine with using the term "Base Offset" instead of "Virtual Address".  It will be defined in the Definition section as "This represents a value to be added to the Buffer Offset in order to obtain the Tagged Offset."  So in sec. 2.4.1, the text "The base Tagged Offset is not explicitly specified, but the target must always assume it as zero" will be deleted.

   

  In sec. 7.3.5 on SCSI Data-in, the original text "It MUST use the Buffer Offset from the SCSI Data-in PDU as the Data Sink Tagged Offset of the RDMA Write Message" will be replaced with:

   

  "It MUST add the Buffer Offset from the SCSI Data-in PDU to the Base Offset as the Data Sink Tagged Offset of the RDMA Write Message."

   

  Similarly, in sec. 7.3.6 on Ready To Transfer, the original text "MUST use the Buffer Offset from the R2T PDU as the Data
  Source Tagged Offset of the RDMA Read Request Message" will be replaced with:

   

  "MUST add the Buffer Offset from the R2T PDU to the Base Offset as the Data Source Tagged Offset of the RDMA Read Request Message."

   

  Mike