Re: iSCSI: Checking the I bit

["Anshul Chadda" <anshul.chadda@trebia.com>]

Hi:
The question of checking bits will be relevant whether a bit/field is set to
1 or 0(means reserved).

The point being does the initiator/target has to check the bits/fields if it
is not affected by those. It (initiator/target) might not want to check for
it as these checks are costly.

I know this issue was discussed before, but I don't know the outcome of
it???

Anshul

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>
To: "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy@Quicksall.com>
Cc: "ips@ece. cmu. edu (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: iSCSI: Checking the I bit


>
> Eddy,
> Technically, the In coming PDUs all have Byte 0, Bit 6, set to one.  It is
> not identified as the I (Immediate) bit.  And it is NOT reserved.
>
> So the Statement from the UNH Plugfest does not apply.  I think your point
> is that if all the incoming PDUs have that bit set, why do we need to set
> the bit, and why do we need to check it.  I think this bit has evolved
over
> time, and perhaps up to now no one has noticed.
>
> If every incoming PDU has the bit set, we may not need the bit to be set,
> and perhaps it should be reserved, thereby not requiring the check.
>
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
> Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
> Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
> Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
>
>
> "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy@Quicksall.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 12/13/2001 03:26:18
AM
>
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
>
>
> To:   "ips@ece. cmu. edu \(E-mail\)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> cc:
> Subject:  iSCSI: Checking the I bit
>
>
>
>
> Is it necessary for  the initiator to check the I bit in every response?
>
> If an initiator does  not need it, then I don't want to take the extra
time
> to check it. I think this  is consistent with the thinking of all
attendees
> of the UNH Plug Fest because  the report from UNH IOL was that "all
> companies failed that  test".
>
> I would like to  propose adding some wording to 3.2.1.1 similar to "It is
> not necessary to check  this bit for 1 if the implementation in the
> initiator does not need its  use".
>
> Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com
>
>
>