SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: iSCSI: Checking the I bit




    I think that Eddy's suggestion to state that parties have to check only what they have to check is valuable and we may want to include a general statement about that.

    Julo


    John Hufferd
    Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

    14-12-01 09:55

           
            To:        "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy@Quicksall.com>
            cc:        "ips@ece. cmu. edu \(E-mail\)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
            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








Home

Last updated: Fri Dec 14 20:17:49 2001
8080 messages in chronological order