SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: Unsolicited Data.



    
    
    It may vary from command to command. A simple cdesign may decide to send
    immediate data only when it will contain all it has to send and send in
    separate PDUs if it has more (solicited or unsolicited).
    I saw no real reason to enforce a behavior or other.
    
    Julo
    
    "Sanjeev Bhagat \(TRIPACE/Zoetermeer\)" <sbhagat@tripace.com> on 07-06-2001
    02:05:39
    
    Please respond to "Sanjeev Bhagat \(TRIPACE/Zoetermeer\)"
          <sbhagat@tripace.com>
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  Re: Unsolicited Data.
    
    
    
    
    Hello,
    
    All that is said below is ok but I cannot understand one thing here
    ----- why would initiator choose not to send unsolicited immediate data
    when
    it has negotiated for IntialR2T= Yes??
    
    Sanjeev
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ayman Ghanem" <aghanem@cisco.com>
    To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:48 PM
    Subject: RE: Unsolicited Data.
    
    
    > 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
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:26 2001
6315 messages in chronological order