RE: iSCSI - Errata - to 20

[Black_David@emc.com]

I've reviewed the set of changes on Julian's web site.
Here are my comments, explanations, and instructions in some cases.

> -several editorial glitches (wording, typos)

One of these glitches was a mistake in the specification of TASK REASSIGN in
Section 10.5.1.  I suspect there are very few implementations of this, as
anyone who tried should have discovered that the wording was reflexive -
"Initiator Task Tag" refers to the Task Management Request itself, making it
only possible to reassign the TASK REASSIGN Request (oops).  That's clearly
broken, and the fix is to change to "Referenced Task Tag".

Section 10.17.3 adds a sentence to say that StatSN is advanced by a Reject.
I don't believe that changes behavior and it is a useful clarification.

The third paragraph in Appendix D relaxes the requirements on the amount
of info returned by SendTargets when there is only one target.  While
reasonable in design intent, this may break initiator code that is not
expecting to be short-changed in this fashion, and hence I think this
change should not be made (but I'll listen to strong counterarguments).

> -version raised to 0x01 (that was agreed/dictated on the list to happen
> when RFC is issued to distinguish RFC-level from pre RFC level).

As stated earlier, this change to Section 10.12.4 is NOT to be made.

> -IESG required text for CHAP administrative domains

Important catch, thanks.

> -clarifying that some chap keys that can have in theory an arbitrary
number
> of bits have in iSCSI a length that is a multiple of 8bits

This was done by disallowing keys that don't have an appropriate length.  At
this stage, I think this is ok vs. the alternative of requiring padding,
esp. as a party who's confused enough to send a weird length key may also
be confused enough to get the padding wrong.  I think this falls into the
"clearly broken, needs to be fixed" category.

There are also a number of clarifications to the CHAP text in 11.1.4 that
are ok as they make the required behavior more explicit.

> -clarifying that TargetPortalGroup does not have to be returned in some
cases

This does change on-the-wire behavior, but only by removing the requirement
to return this value in cases where it is clearly of no use to the party
who receives it.  I believe this is ok, but will listen to objections.

> -the UA related text for abort (in both relevant places)

Once WG Last Call closes on the command ordering draft (assuming it closes
without objection to this point) a sentence saying which ASC/ASCQ code T10
has defined for this case needs to be added in both places.

-references 
>-port numbers (default unchanged but can be overridden with the system port
860)

Text is a little unclear - see my separate response to Eddy.

> Please have look and comment (before we say good bye :-)) 

Done,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------