RE: iSCSI question

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Paul,


> But that's not what "hierarchy" refers to here.
> 
> The hierarchy is one of increased capability, not increased
> desperation.  Session recovery is the minimum required; the additional
> levels are optional capabilities in addition to the minimum.  Each
> higher level in the hierarchy is a superset of the one below.

It all depends on the definition of these recovery classes.

1) If they are defined in a superset/subset fashion, then I agree
that level of complexity increases as: Session->PDU->connection.
Then I suggest changing texts in other parts of the draft such as
section 5.14 to indicate that if you have the capabilities of
class X, then you don't need to escalate to lower classes, because
class X already has those capabilities itself. Also I suggest
changing the hierarchy figure as following:


                             +
                            / \
                           / 2 \      
                          +-----+
                         /  1,2  \     
                        +---------+
                       /   0,1,2   \   
                      +-------------+


2) If they are defined as disjoint classes, then the hierarchy for
complexity makes no sense. Rather you need a hierarchy for escalation
or transition.


Based on the emails that I have received so far it seems that the intent is the former definition.

Yours,
-Shahram