RE: iSCSI : target session login behaviour

["Ayman Ghanem" <aghanem@cisco.com>]

Is Status SNACK reject going to be added as a reason for a reject PDU?. If
not, what is the appropriate behavior on a target receiving a status SNACK
that it can not fulfill?. Should it terminate the connection?.

-Ayman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> julian_satran@il.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:59 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: iSCSI : target session login behaviour
>
>
>
>
> SNACK rejected has been removed from the SCSI Response - Julo
>
> Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com> on 26/04/2001 21:41:20
>
> Please respond to Santosh Rao <santoshr@cup.hp.com>
>
> To:   Stephen Bailey <steph@cs.uchicago.edu>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:   David Black <Black_David@emc.com>
> Subject:  Re: iSCSI : target session login behaviour
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Bailey wrote:
>
> > > As a side note, the iSCSI draft Status Class/Codes could do
> with a misc
> > > error category along the lines of the FC "No additional Explantion"
> > > reason explantion. This would help deal with error conditions that
> don't
> > > come under the listed category.
> >
> > Personally, I think we should add categories for reasons we obviously
> > see now, AND have a no additional reason.
> >
> > One peculiarity with what you're talking about above is that it should
> > be a login response status code which expresses this rejection.  The
> > login response set does not seem to have an `invalid parameter'
> > response for cases when the request is somehow inconsistent.
>
> Steph,
>
> The iSCSI draft is unclear today about the exact mechanism through which
> the target indicates "invalid parameters" in response to a received
> command.
>
> 1) Should it use a REJECT PDU or respond with the appropriate response
> for that PDU indicating a response code of "Invalid Parameters" and a
> "first bad byte" offset that indicates which parameter the target
> disliked.
>
> IMO, an "Invalid Parameters" response in the response codes is
> appropriate for SCSI Command and SCSI Task Mgmt commands. [coupled with
> a "first bad byte" offset.]
>
> This is missing today.
>
> 2) Also, as discussed above, a general "No Addional Explanation" type of
> status code in the login response would cover the "misc" category.
>
> 3) There are cases of ambiguity in the usage of REJECT or SCSI Response.
> Take the case of a "SNACK Reject". It is present in both the SCSI
> Response (SNACK Rejected) and REJECT PDU reason code (Data SNACK
> Reject). Which mechanism is to be used in this case ?
>
> 4) There is no "Status SNACK Rejected" in the REJECT PDU.
>
> Regards,
> Santosh
>  - santoshr.vcf
>
>
>
>