RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...

["Yaron Klein" <klein@sanrad.com>]

Tanjore,

Some more comments:

The error statuses codes on Appendix B are not synchronized with the main
draft. We will fix it.

The term "target conflict" was borrowed from HTTP. Mark clarified this
scenario well. I would like to add that this status enables better
resolution and knowledge to the target. That is, in those cases the target
can just not open the connection or just reject it like server error.
However, this will not give indication of the situation as described by
Mark.

Regards,

Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Mark
Bakke
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:51 PM
To: Tanjore K. Suresh
Cc: kaladhar@us.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...


Tanjore-

Thanks for the feedback.  I can comment on #3:

"Tanjore K. Suresh" wrote:
>         3. Appendix B, B.4.5,
>           Target Conflict 45 doesnot seem to be appropriate.
>
>                 I have not reviewed all the documents yet to give a
>                 recommendation and hence cannot give, but feel
>                 " Target Conflict" doesnot
>                 convey the meaning of the Scenario indicating
>                 case of " simple devices that can handle one device or
>                 the target had reached the limit of its Initiators'
capacity."

Perhaps we chose the wrong term for this one.  How about if call it
"Target Busy", and slightly re-word it?

   The target is busy with another initiator and cannot handle
   another one. The initiator MAY try again later. This can be the case
   for simple devices that can handle only one initiator at a time, or
   for a target that has does not have the resources to support one more
   initiator.  In contrast to the  previous examples, this rejection is
   temporary.

--
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054