Re: iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6

["Matt Wakeley" <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>]

reply from Julian...

-------- Original Message --------
From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com
Subject: Re: iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6
To: Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>



Comments in text.

Thanks,
Julo

"Matt Wakeley" <matt_wakeley@agilent.com> on 01-05-2001 03:53:24

Please respond to Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>

To:   IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:
Subject:  iscsi: comments to iSCSI rev 6




Section 2.2.3:

The AHSLength field where it is requires RISC type processors to shift the
length left by 8 bytes.

+++ good point - I will make length the first field.  +++

Section 2.3.5, 3rd paragraph: contradicts itself.  First it states that a
AHS
header "MUST" be present, then goes on to define what the bi-di read length
is
if the header is not present.  If it's not present, it's a protocol error.

+++ will fix - it MUST be present +++

Section 2.4.1, last sentance: "b0-b3 MUST be 0" s/b "b1-b4 MUST be 0".

+++ will fix +++

Section 2.7.7: why have residual bits/fields in a data PDU?  If there is
residual, then send a status PDU indicating the residual value.

+++ residual counts are not necessarily errors. Interpretation is by target
and many commands for undefined length transfer end having a residual
count. The space is available in the header so I see no point in not
sending the counts.
SAM2 is somewhat ambivalent about overflow though.  +++

Section 2.8.3: Keys not understood by the target should be expicitely
indicated as not being understood.  Silence is not a good way to indicate
that
one does not understand something.  Also, something more ascii friendly
such
as a semi-colon (;) should be used to separate key-value pairs instead of a
null (0x00) character.  This would allow generic text manipulation
libraries
to be used.
+++ generic text manipulation libraries use 0 as an end of string - our
eyes don't :-)
as for keys not understood the intent is to have new or vendor specific
keys not interfering with the old or standrd only implementations
 +++

Section 2.9.3: why "MUST" key-value pairs be returned in the same order
they
were issued?  Seems like a rather strong requirement for no apparent
reason.

+++ I've changed it into lower-case should +++

Section 2.12.3: indicate that the LUN is copied from the NOP-IN.  This is
much
more clear than "the correct value for the task".

+++ and open it up to strange thing like LU5 asking a nop-out to LU7 ? +++

Section 2.14: Why is there no CmdSN for the logout command?  Also, 2 ways
of
performing the same operation (cleaning up) are stated in the 3rd
paragraph.
In the interest of reducing "options", I suggest that one be picked as the
only method.
+++ silly mistake - i've fixed it +++
Section 2.17.4: "The target assigns" should be "The target may assign".
+++ ??? it always put something there +++
Section 6.3 & 6.7.2: why "MUST" a target reissue missing responses?  What
if
it is not able to?  There should be the option to reject the SNACK.
+++ I am counting - you are number 2 +++
Appendix: "Initial Marker-less Interval" - I say again, there should not be
a
"minimum markerless interval".  This should be whatever is negotiated.
+++ The negotiation itself can't proceed if there are markers that nobody
knows how to take out +++

-Matt Wakeley
Agilent Technologies