IETF Logo Mail Archive

[storm] What if a SCSI Response PDU has GOOD status and a Data Segment?

Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org> Wed, 25 November 2009 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <roweber@sempai.org>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321803A68F7 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:14:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7QlgJ-4OXmCb for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sempai.org (greenwood.sempai.org [72.249.129.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130063A67C1 for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 155.sub-70-196-96.myvzw.com ([70.196.96.155] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by sempai.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <roweber@sempai.org>) id 1ND5WQ-000KcB-OP for storm@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:14:16 -0600
Message-ID: <4B0C76CF.8070905@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:14:07 -0600
From: Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: roweber@sempai.org
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 70.196.96.155
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: roweber@sempai.org
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on sempai.org)
Subject: [storm] What if a SCSI Response PDU has GOOD status and a Data Segment?
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:14:22 -0000

One of the questions that T10 has been wrestling with lately
concerns a case where their equivalent of the iSCSI Response
PDU contains a status other than CHECK CONDITION and sense
data in a Data Segment.

What will initiators do if handed one of these beasts?

Note: GOOD is the current favorite doppelganger for CHECK
CONDITION, but BUSY et al. should be considered too when
thinking about what initiators might do.

The current belief in T10 is that initiators most likely
will ignore any Data Segment found in a Response PDU with
GOOD status. This is based on the notion that initiators
do not squander the extra cycles needed to validate entire
format of a Response PDU.

What do the implementers of iSCSI initiators think?

All the best,

.Ralph

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email