Subject: Re: iSCSI-countdown to new version

From: "Jim Hafner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:01:25 -0700

Folks,

Lest this get us all confused, the "Alias" section referred to by Julian is
NOT the Initiator Alias and Target Alias strings debated before (about
whether we need these in the protocol).  This new section deals with SCSI
alias designations for use third party SCSI operations.  As Julian
mentioned, the mechanism for using them are defined in SPC-3, but the
specific formats for embedding the alias designations in SCSI parameter
data is supposed to go in the protocol document (hence, it's in the new
draft).

Jim Hafner

Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@[email-masked] on 09/08/2001 05:39:45 am

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  iSCSI-countdown to new version

Dear colleagues,,

I have posted 07-90.txt and 07-90.pdf on my site
(http://www.haifa.il.ibm/satran/ips).
The pdf file has "bar-marked" the changes (in addition to the change log).

The pdf file is produced with Acrobat 5.0

The files are a accumulative versions of the changes I've posted earlier
plus editorials.
It has also an Alias appendix.

Aliases (that where here up to very early version) are now handled by T10
in the SCSI documents but the
protocol documents are required to carry their specific formats.

Julo

---

From: "Eddy Quicksall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:13:11 -0400

So a correction is needed in 2.12.2.

Also, if all other login phase PDUs MUST be immediate, Section 1.2.2.1 needs
change because it clearly implies the opposite.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:41 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Hi Eddy,

IMO 2.12.2 is incorrect and the initial login command MUST be immediate as
are all other login phase PDUs.  Therefore 1.2.2.1 is correct.

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:15 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Section 1.2.2.1 says:

  Command numbering starts with the login request on the first
  connection of a session (the leading login) and includes every
non-immediate
  command issued afterwards whether during login or in full-feature
  phase.

But 2.12.2 says:

  Login MUST be issued as an immediate request (I=1) except for the
  first Login request (C=0) of the leading connection that MUST have
  I=0.

Since all commands during login must have the I bit set, I believe 1.2.2.1
3rd line should read

  command issued afterwards in full-feature

Am I correct?

Eddy

---

From: "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:33:30 +0100

Hi Eddy,

The last part of the sentence was added just to highlight that if the first
full feature phase commands were immediate then it does not increment the
CmdSN.  I would therefore proprose:

  Command numbering starts with the login request on the first
  connection of a session (the leading login) and includes every
  non-immediate command issued afterwards including into the full
  feature phase.

The first login must be immediate otherwise if it is queued and there is a
missing PDU earlier in the command queue then the login will not get
processed.  If the login was for recovery we have stalemate!

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:25 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

I'm not a good writer but I would write it as:

  Command numbering starts with the login request on the first
  connection of a session (the leading login) and includes every
  non-immediate command issued afterwards.

The reason it works better is because all login commands have to be
immediate (with the correction you have stated).

BTW, I thought the reason for the very first login to have the I = 0 was so
hardware does not have to worry about the leading login and will just always
advance CmdSN for the next Immediate command.

Does Julian know the leading login is supposed to also be Immediate?

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:21 PM

Eddy,

I think I may be missing something here: what would you suggest the wording
to be?

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:17 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Because it says "afterwards whether during login".

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:16 PM

Hi Eddy,

Why does 1.2.2.1 need modifying?

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:13 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'; [email-masked]
Cc: Sanjay Goyal; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Eddy

-----Original Message-----

Hi Eddy,

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:15 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Section 1.2.2.1 says:

But 2.12.2 says:

Am I correct?

Eddy

---

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 06:29:17 +0300

yes thanks - will fix - Julo

"Eddy Quicksall" <[email-masked]> on 13-09-2001 19:14:42

Please respond to <[email-masked]>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email-masked]>
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Section 1.2.2.1 says:

But 2.12.2 says:

Am I correct?

Eddy

---

From: "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:35:15 +0100

Julian,

The text describes that the first login PDU of a connection and not the
session is set as non-immediate.  However, I think all login PDUs shouls be
immediate:

Is the only reason for making the initial login PDU of a session
non-immediate is to set the CmdSN?  However, if all login PDUs are immediate
then the target can set the ExpCmdSN from the CmdSN of the login PDU.  This
has the advantage that processing all login PDUs is handled the same and
that the protocol is simplified.

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:50 AM
To: BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Not for the session establishing login request.  Julo

"BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <[email-masked]>
@ece.cmu.edu on 13-09-2001 20:33:30

Please respond to "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)"
      <[email-masked]>

To:   "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>,
      [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Hi Eddy,

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:25 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

BTW, I thought the reason for the very first login to have the I = 0 was so
hardware does not have to worry about the leading login and will just
always
advance CmdSN for the next Immediate command.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----

Eddy,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:17 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Eddy

-----Original Message-----

Hi Eddy,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:13 PM
To: 'BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)'; [email-masked]
Cc: Sanjay Goyal; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Also, if all other login phase PDUs MUST be immediate, Section 1.2.2.1
needs
change because it clearly implies the opposite.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----

Hi Eddy,

Cheers

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:15 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI-countdown to new version

Section 1.2.2.1 says:

But 2.12.2 says:

Am I correct?

Eddy