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 h06KlEp16572 for ips-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:47:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f Received: from quicksall.com ([63.99.209.87]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h06KlCW16568 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ivvt2dxrc11 [24.62.223.170] by quicksall.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.12) id AA0E2860112; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:41:50 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Eddy Quicksall" To: "'Mallikarjun C.'" , Subject: RE: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:46:34 -0500 Message-ID: <00ba01c2b5c4$b5483160$6403a8c0@ivvt2dxrc11> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <00a901c2b5bf$e989ac10$edd52b0f@rose.hp.com> Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk Yes, I noticed my typo of "two" vs. "three" but too late. Below you say that the ordering is iSCSI ordering but section 6.5 is saying SCSI ordering (queued commands is SCSI). So, that leaves me a little confused as to what this paragraph is trying to say, especially when the "status is never communicated back ... to the initiator". I'm probably mis-understanding something. It appears as though this is just a method of implementing within the target. Eddy -----Original Message----- From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:12 PM To: Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks 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.