RE: sector alignment for DataOut PDUs?

[Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>]

>>>>> "Rod" == Rod Harrison <rod.harrison@windriver.com> writes:

 Rod> Paul, I strongly object to your alternative of tightening the
 Rod> spec wording to force all PDUs to be max sized except the
 Rod> last. As I mentioned in an earlier email, since draft v09 we
 Rod> don't have a negotiated PDU size we have arbitrary maximums set
 Rod> by the receivers. Forcing an initiator to send "full" PDUs is
 Rod> unreasonable since the target may set a huge MaxRecvPDULength.

 Rod> The intent of the current wording was, if I remember correctly,
 Rod> to have the initiator always send as much unsolicited data as
 Rod> possible. This was to avoid the target having to wait for the F
 Rod> bit on the unsolicited data before issuing R2T(s) for the
 Rod> remaining payload. Note that unsolicited data, and its maximum
 Rod> size, are negotiated parameters and that that current SHOULD is
 Rod> quite different from forcing initiators to always send "full"
 Rod> DATA-OUT PDUs.

That's a good point.

So for unsolicited data we have a negotiated max length, but you're
allowed to send less than that.  Similarly, for R2T the target
requests a length and the initiator is allowed to send less than that.

That can be tightened up, but doing so doesn't constrain the
individual PDUs that are being sent, only the whole burst.  I was
concerned with the individual PDUs, so a different rule is needed
there.  And as you point out, the max PDU length is no longer suitable
for that.  (Undoing the change of what Max PDU length means back to
what it was in -08 doesn't sound like the right way to address this.)

 Rod> Please note that I don't object to your original proposal, just
 Rod> to the alternative which I believe would be a huge functional
 Rod> change.

Thanks... your comments make sense to me.

	  paul