RE: iSCSI: minor conflict introduced by C bit

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

OK - julo

pat_thaler@agilent.com 06/06/2002 07:10 PM Please respond to pat_thaler

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu         cc:                 Subject:        RE: iSCSI: minor conflict introduced by C bit

Julian,
 
I don't think that does it because the text is ambiguous about whether the target could delay sending the tag by sending empty Login Response PDUs when the C bit is set to 0. I suggest:
 
Target portal group tag is a 16-bit numerical-value that uniquely identifies a portal group within an iSCSI target node. This key car-ries the value of the tag of the portal group that is servicing the Login request. The iSCSI target returns this key to the initiator in the Login Response PDU to the first Login Request PDU that has the C bit set to 0. 

Pat
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:11 AM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: minor conflict introduced by C bit


In fact for 11.9 the text will be: 

Target portal group tag is a 16-bit numerical-value that uniquely identifies a portal group within an iSCSI target node. This key car-ries the value of the tag of the portal group that is servicing the Login request. The iSCSI target returns this key to the initiator in the first non-empty Login Response PDU (where empty responses may be required by Login Requests with the C bit set to 1). 

11.4 refers to the Sendtargets response that will be presented whenever and has no other apparent conflict with C. 

Julo 
----- Forwarded by Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM on 06/06/2002 06:06 PM -----

Julian Satran 06/03/2002 08:21 PM

To:        "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@agilent.com>        cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu        From:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL        Subject:        RE: iSCSI: minor conflict introduced by C bitLink

Thanks Pat - I think that 3 is acceptable and keeps current semantics unchanged. 

Julo

"THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@agilent.com> 06/03/2002 07:47 PM Please respond to "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)"

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL        cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu        Subject:        RE: iSCSI: minor conflict introduced by C bit

Julian, 
  
I have noticed a minor conflict of the C bit with existing text. 
  
11.4 and 11.9 require the target to return TargetName and TargetPortal group in the first Login Response PDU but the new text on the C bit in 4.2 requires the target to return an empty response if the C bit is set. Therefore, if the C bit is set on the first Login Request PDU, the target will have conflicting requirements on it. 
  
One could resolve this by: 
1) Specify that the C bit MUST NOT be set in the first Login Request PDU; or 
2) Allow declarations to be sent in PDUs when the other side has the C bit set; or 
3) Change the requirement in 11.4 and 11.9 to be the response to the first Login Request PDU with the C bit set to zero. 
  
Regards, 
Pat