SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: MaxRecvPDULength question




    Bob - you had your other voice! - Julo


    Ken Sandars <ksandars@eurologic.com>

    06/10/2002 07:49 PM
    Please respond to Ken Sandars

           
            To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu>
            cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu
            Subject:        Re: MaxRecvPDULength question

           


    Hi Julo & Bob,

    I support Bob on this change to the completely unambiguous

         "MaxRecvDataSegmentLength"

    Cheers,
    Ken

    --
    Ken Sandars
    Eurologic Systems Ltd
    ksandars@eurologic.com



    On Monday 10 June 2002 1:51 pm, Julian Satran wrote:
    > Bob,
    >
    >  I can do that too - and if we wait for consensus for a name - well that
    > will be forever.
    > So  if at least one more person wants the change and nobody is against we
    > will have it as you wish if not then not.
    >
    > Julo
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu>
    > 06/10/2002 10:42 AM
    > Please respond to "Robert D. Russell"
    >
    >
    >         To:     Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    >         cc:
    >         Subject:        Re: MaxRecvPDULength question
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Julian:
    >
    > It has been stated several times that at this late stage we
    > should not be requesting changes that are just preferences.
    >
    > Nevertheless, due to apparent misunderstandings of its meaning,
    > the key named MaxRecvPDULength in draft 12 is apparently going
    > to have its name changed in draft 13.
    >
    > Fine.  No problem.
    >
    > However, to remove all possibility of future misunderstandings,
    > why don't we give it a name that says precisely what it is:
    >
    > MaxRecvDataSegmentLength
    >
    > That way, the first sentence in the third paragraph of section
    > 9.7.1 would begin:
    >
    > "DataSegmentLength MUST not exceed MaxRecvDataSegmentLength
    >  for the direction it is sent ..."
    >
    > which seems to me to be the classic definition of a maximum.
    >
    > The issue of changing the name from MaxRecvPDULength started with an
    > e-mail sent by Luben Tuikov on 21 May (who, by the way, did NOT want
    > to change the name, just its meaning), and was followed by a short
    > flurry of e-mails under the thread "MaxRecvPDULength question".
    >
    > Some of the names suggested on that thread were:
    >   MaxRecvDataLength        (21 May by Paul Konig)
    >   MaxRecvDataSegmentSize   (21 May by Pat Thaler)
    >   MaxRecvDataSegSize       (21 May by Pat Thaler)
    >   MaxRecvPDUDataSize       (22 May by Pat Thaler)
    >
    > and what got into the draft was this last suggestion by Pat.
    >
    > I don't believe there was a consensus for this choice (probably, as
    > was stated by Pat several times, because most people don't really see
    > the need for a renaming and didn't bother to participate in the thread).
    > Therefore, I would ask you to reconsider the new name and ask for
    > consensus on the new choice.
    >
    > I believe the name MaxRecvDataSegmentLength is so closely linked to the
    > name DataSegmentLength that its meaning should be clear to even a
    > first-time reader, especially given the statement in section 9.7.1
    > quoted above.

    >
    > Furthermore, there clearly is the concept of DataSegmentLength elsewhere
    > in the standard -- every PDU has a DataSegmentLength field.
    > I could find no concept of PDUDataSize (or even "data size") elsewhere in
    > the current draft.
    >
    >
    > Whether or not this renaming happens (again), I believe there should be
    > the following rewordings to be more precise in order to avoid any
    > ambiguities and/or future misinterpretations.
    >
    > The first sentence in section 9.10.5 should be changed to read:
    >
    >  "The DataSegmentLength in a Text Request MUST NOT exceed the
    >  iSCSI target's MaxRecvDataSegmentLength (a per connection and per
    >  direction negotiated parameter)."
    >
    > and the first sentence in section 9.11.6 should be changed to read:
    >
    >  "The DataSegmentLength in a Text Request MUST NOT exceed the
    >  iSCSI initiator's MaxRecvDataSegmentLength (a per connection and per
    >  direction negotiated parameter)."
    >
    > Finally, two sentences in section 11.13 should be changed to read:
    >
    >  "The initiator or target declares the maximum DataSegmentLength in
    >  bytes it can receive in an iSCSI PDU."
    >
    > and
    >
    >  "The transmitter (initiator or target) is required to send PDUs with a
    >  DataSegmentLength not exceeding MaxRecvDataSegmentLength of the
    > receiver."
    >
    >
    > Thank you for your consideration,
    >
    >
    > Bob Russell
    > InterOperability Lab
    > University of New Hampshire
    > rdr@iol.unh.edu
    > 603-862-3774




Home

Last updated: Mon Jun 10 17:19:15 2002
10644 messages in chronological order