RE: Unsolicited Data.

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

That section was modified. Julian posted the revised text here:

http://ips.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/mail/msg04647.html

-Ayman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:36 AM
> To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
>
>
>
> The current spec states that the F bit is "set to 1 when the
> immediate data
> that accompany the command are all the data associated with this
> command. It
> is an error if the Length and Expected Length do not match and this bit is
> set to 1".
>
> I interpret this as there is no more data to follow and not that the
> initiator has opted not to use the unsolicited data feature.
> Therefore the
> spec needs to be modified to indicate that if unsolicited data has been
> negotiated (i.e. InitialR2T=no), then the initiator MUST send unsolicited
> data of length = min( FirstBurstSize, ExpectedTransferLength ) minus any
> immediate data sent).
>
> Matthew Burbridge
> NIS-Bristol
> Hewlett Packard
> Telnet: 312 7010
> E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ayman Ghanem [mailto:aghanem@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:31 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
>
>
> If the initiator decides not to send immediate or unsolicited data when it
> has negotiated to do so, then the initiator must set the F-bit in the
> command PDU. This prompts the target to send R2T.
>
> I still agree that the spec should indicate that the initiator
> MUST use the
> resources it has negotiated. If it has negotiated the option to send
> immediate data or unsolicited data then it should do that to the limits
> allowed. If it has negotiated a PDU length, it must not send data
> PDUs less
> than the negotiated limit except for last one. While most
> implementation may
> do that for performance reasons, I would prefer defining this in the spec.
>
> -Ayman
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> > BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:58 AM
> > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> > Subject: Unsolicited Data.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but it is causing some
> > confusion.  The statement below implies that if immediate data has been
> > negotiated then the initiator MAY use it.
> >
> > "If ImmediateData is set to no and InitialR2T is set to no then the
> > initiator MUST NOT send unsolicited immediate data but MAY send one
> > unsolicited burst of Data-OUT PDUs."
> >
> > Therefore the target must wait for the initial burst of unsolicited data
> > before issuing the first R2T (if there is subsequent data).  If the
> > initiator decides not to send it then the target must timeout and
> > issue the
> > R2T for the initial data.  Can the spec be changed to state that if
> > unsolicited data has been negotiated, then the initiator MUST use it.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Matthew Burbridge
> > NIS-Bristol
> > Hewlett Packard
> > Telnet: 312 7010
> > E-mail: matthewb@bri.hp.com
> >
> >
>