Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h06KCOi14648 for ips-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:12:24 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h06KCLW14639 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from rosemail.rose.hp.com (rosemail.rose.hp.com [15.96.64.26]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934AB4009BC; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from swathi (swathi.rose.hp.com [15.43.213.237]) by rosemail.rose.hp.com with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.3 SMKit7.02) id MAA02332; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:12:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00a901c2b5bf$e989ac10$edd52b0f@rose.hp.com> From: "Mallikarjun C." To: , References: <003a01c2b585$d3355200$6403a8c0@ivvt2dxrc11> Subject: Re: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:12:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk Comments below. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 Roseville CA 95747 cbm@rose.hp.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eddy Quicksall" To: Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks > There are two sections titled Implicit Termination of Tasks but they are > slightly different. Which is correct? Both are correct and consistent. > > Section 6.5 lists 4 items but section 10.14.5 only lists two. I'm seeing three in 10.14.5..... Even though 6.5 lists all the four cases, it makes it clear that the check condition is to be employed only for three cases - and only those three are listed by 10.14.5. Perhaps the text could have been a little bit more explicit about this distinction. > > If 6.5 is correct, why is item D not included in the unit attention? SAM-3 > says: It's not so much a SAM issue. The issue we considered was how to ensure iSCSI-standard ordered delivery of commands in the face of errors. The ordered delivery of commands does not make sense for case (d) - that of creating a new session - ordering is not guaranteed anyway across sessions.