RE: iSCSI: DLB-T.16 (resource requirement for connection reinsta tement)

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

OOps - meant to say SHOULD for 1 or 0 - I will fix it. Julo

Black_David@emc.com 07/14/2002 10:08 AM Please respond to Black_David

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:                 Subject:        RE: iSCSI: DLB-T.16  (resource requirement for connection reinsta                tement)

Ok with me.  --David
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 2:27 AM
To: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: RE: iSCSI: DLB-T.16 (resource requirement for connection reinsta tement)


David, 

Mallikarjun was only saying that 4.3.4 is the RIGHT PLACE to say that a second connection MUST be supported 
IF ErrorRecoveryLevel is higher than 0. 

I would suggest: 

Targets MUST support opening a second connection even when they do not support multiple connections in Full Feature Phase if ErrorRecoveryLevel is 2 and SHOULD support opening a second con-nection if ErrorRecoveryLevel is 1. 

Julo

Black_David@emc.com Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 07/10/2002 10:56 AM Please respond to Black_David

To:        cbm@rose.hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu        cc:                Subject:        RE: iSCSI: DLB-T.16  (resource requirement for connection reinsta        tement)

Mallikarjun,

I think this ought to be related to ErrorRecoveryLevel - it looks like
you're suggesting that connection reinstatement SHOULD be supported
at ErrorRecoveryLevel 0 - at 1 and above, I believe it's already a
MUST.  I don't have a problem with that, does anyone else?

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: iSCSI: DLB-T.16 (resource requirement for connection
> reinstatement)
> 
> 
> > [T.16] 4.3.4  Connection reinstatement
> > 
> >    Targets should support opening a second connection even 
> >    when they do not support multiple connections in Full Feature Phase. 
> > 
> > Looks like that ought to be an upper case "SHOULD".  I think this needs
> > further discussion.  Section 5.2 appears to use a lower case "must"
> > for this:
> 
> Let's be careful here - section 5.2 discusses the generic case of
"connection 
> cleanup" - that includes both implicit and explicit logouts - whereas
"connection 
> reinstatement" is just implicit logout.
> 
> While "connection cleanup" does not require additional connection
resources
> in the general case, a target wanting to support connection reinstatement
SHOULD
> support *opening* a second connection (though it may reject the Login if
it's
> for a different CID).
> 
> I believe that connection reinstatement is a useful functionality that the
targets 
> SHOULD support, so I agree that the change suggested by David is a
reasonable 
> one to make in 4.3.4 which only discusses connection reinstatement.
> 
> Mallikarjun
>