Re: iSCSI: Byte padding requirement question

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Wan-Hui,

Yes it is a side effect of the marker and we could have made it optional
but it ends up being messy if you admit
non-symmetric situations in which you send markers but do not receive them
or viceversa.
As padding does not practically add too much I thought it would be simpler
for the implementers to have it always (and I've resisted previous requests
to include padding!).

Regards,
Julo

"Lee, WanHuiHendra" <WanHui_Lee@adaptec.com> on 05/01/2001 04:49:00

Please respond to "Lee, WanHuiHendra" <WanHui_Lee@adaptec.com>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  iSCSI: Byte padding requirement question




Julian,

In the length field description (section 2.2.3 Length):
"... The length field accounts for proper iSCSI PDU content; whatever
padding is required to reach a 4 byte boundary in the TCP stream is implied
by the protocol but not accounted for in the length field."

Is this a side effect requirement due to the added "framing using marker at
fixed interval" mechanism ?

If yes, since framing is a negotiated feature, would it make sense to make
the byte padding only a requirement if framing is enabled ?

If this is not due to the framing feature, could you let us know why it is
a
requirement (I did not see it in previous drafts) ?


Thanks,
Wan-Hui