RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...

["Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott@compaq.com>]

"Busy" and "Reservation Conflict" are SCSI Status code names defined in
SAM-2; I'd avoid using them for this different purpose.
---
Robert.Elliott@compaq.com
Compaq Server Storage



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato E. Maranon [mailto:rmaranon@marantinetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:12 AM
> To: klein@sanrad.com; 'Tanjore K. Suresh'
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...
> 
> 
> My two cents.  I like to suggest "Target Reserved", "Target 
> Reservation
> Conflict" or "Target Committed".  For this condition to 
> occur, the target
> may not be necessarily busy, but just out of resources, or 
> can only handle
> one.  "Target Busy" seems to imply busy.  Building on Mark's 
> desciption
> below, something like:
> 
>    The target has committed resources to one or more 
> initiators 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Renato Maranon
> Maranti Networks, Inc
> 920 Hillview Court
> Milpitas, Ca 95035
> Phone:  408-719-9600 x309
> Fax:    408-719-9631
> email:  rmaranon@marantinetworks.com
> home:   www.marantinetworks.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Yaron Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:38 AM
> To: 'Tanjore K. Suresh'
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Naming and Discovery Draft...
> 
> 
> 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
>