|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Confusing wording in description of Status-Class
>>>>> "pat" == pat thaler <pat_thaler@agilent.com> writes:
pat> Julian, I agree that there are valid reasons to chose not to
pat> follow redirection and not complete the connection. Therefore
pat> the must should stay lower case. For instance, if the
pat> TargetAddress indicated an external domain one might not choose
pat> to follow it or the TargetAddress might be a port to which one
pat> already has a connection open.
Thanks, that explanation helps. What I was looking for was agreement
that simply saying "Redirect is an error, I don't ever do redirect, I
just fail the I/O" is not right.
paul
> -----Original Message----- From: Julian Satran
> I will say exception but not MUST as you may not to follow
> redirection before consulting an oracle :-) (only partly
> joking).
> Julo
pat> Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
pat> 05/29/2002 07:14 PM Please respond to Paul Koning
pat> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu cc: Subject: iSCSI: Confusing wording in
pat> description of Status-Class
pat> We have run into misinterpretations of the description of
pat> Status-Class (section 9.13.5). As written, it can be misread to
pat> say that Redirection (Status-Class = 1) is an error, and
pat> initiators can treat a redirection response from a target by
pat> failing the I/O rather than by following the redirection
pat> pointer.
pat> The current wording is:
pat> A non-zero Status-Class indicates an exception. In this case,
pat> Status- Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when
pat> handling errors, without having to look at the Status-Detail.
pat> The Status- Detail allows finer-grained error recovery for more
pat> sophisticated initiators, as well as better information for
pat> error logging. ... 1 - Redirection - indicates that the
pat> initiator must take further action to complete the request. This
pat> is usually due to the target moving to a different address. ...
pat> I would propose the following rewording:
pat> A non-zero Status-Class indicates an exception. In this case,
pat> Status- Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when
pat> handling exceptionss, without having to look at the
pat> Status-Detail. The Status- Detail allows finer-grained
pat> exception handling for more sophisticated initiators, as well as
pat> better information for error logging. ... 1 - Redirection -
pat> indicates that the initiator MUST take further action to
pat> complete the request. This is usually due to the target moving
pat> to a different address. ...
pat> The wording changes are: replace "error" by "exception" in the
pat> first paragraph, since redirects are not errors, and use "MUST"
pat> rather than "must" in the description of redirect.
pat> paul
pat> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
pat> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;
pat> charset=iso-8859-1">
pat> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
pat> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2>Julian,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree that
pat> there are valid reasons to chose not to follow redirection and
pat> not complete the connection. Therefore the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
pat> <DIV><SPAN class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial size=2>must
pat> should stay lower case. For instance, if the TargetAddress
pat> indicated an external domain one might not</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
pat> <DIV><SPAN class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2>choose to follow it or the TargetAddress might be a port
pat> to which one already has a connection open.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
pat> <DIV><SPAN class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2>Pat</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN
pat> class=155254816-29052002><FONT face=Arial
pat> size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV
pat> class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
pat> size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Julian Satran
pat> [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May
pat> 29, 2002 9:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Paul Koning<BR><B>Cc:</B>
pat> ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
pat> iSCSI: Confusing wording in description of
pat> Status-Class<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
pat> size=2>I will say exception but not MUST as you may not to
pat> follow redirection before consulting an oracle :-) (only partly
pat> joking).</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Julo</FONT>
pat> <BR><BR><BR> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD>
pat> <TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>Paul Koning
pat> <ni1d@arrl.net></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
pat> size=1>Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu</FONT> <P><FONT
pat> face=sans-serif size=1>05/29/2002 07:14 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT
pat> face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to Paul Koning</FONT>
pat> <BR></P> <TD><FONT face=Arial size=1>
pat> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
pat> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu</FONT>
pat> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> cc:
pat> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
pat> size=1> Subject:
pat> iSCSI: Confusing wording in description of
pat> Status-Class</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=1>
pat> </FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><FONT
pat> face="Courier New" size=2>We have run into misinterpretations of
pat> the description of Status-Class<BR>(section 9.13.5). As
pat> written, it can be misread to say that<BR>Redirection
pat> (Status-Class = 1) is an error, and initiators can treat
pat> a<BR>redirection response from a target by failing the I/O
pat> rather than by<BR>following the redirection pointer.<BR><BR>The
pat> current wording is:<BR><BR> A non-zero Status-Class
pat> indicates an exception. In this case, Status-<BR>
pat> Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when handling
pat> <BR> errors, without having to look at the
pat> Status-Detail. The Status-<BR> Detail allows
pat> finer-grained error recovery for more sophisticated <BR>
pat> initiators, as well as better information for error
pat> logging.<BR> ...<BR> 1 -
pat> Redirection - indicates that the initiator must take further
pat> <BR> action to complete
pat> the request. This is usually due to the <BR>
pat> target moving to a different
pat> address. ...<BR><BR>I would propose the following
pat> rewording:<BR><BR> A non-zero Status-Class
pat> indicates an exception. In this case, Status-<BR>
pat> Class is sufficient for a simple initiator to use when handling
pat> <BR> exceptionss, without having to look at the
pat> Status-Detail. The Status-<BR> Detail allows
pat> finer-grained exception handling for more sophisticated
pat> <BR> initiators, as well as better information for
pat> error logging.<BR> ...<BR> 1 -
pat> Redirection - indicates that the initiator MUST take further
pat> <BR> action to complete
pat> the request. This is usually due to the <BR>
pat> target moving to a different
pat> address. ...<BR><BR>The wording changes are: replace "error" by
pat> "exception" in the first<BR>paragraph, since redirects are not
pat> errors, and use "MUST" rather than<BR>"must" in the description
pat> of redirect.<BR><BR>
pat> paul<BR><BR></FONT><BR><BR></BODY></HTML>
Home Last updated: Wed May 29 16:18:37 2002 10383 messages in chronological order |