Re: iSCSI: draft vs. 14 typos, suggestion, questions

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

Thanks - comments in text - Julo

Tomáš Bartušek <tomasb@s3group.cz> 07/03/2002 02:38 PM Please respond to Tomáš Bartušek

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu, ivan.pavelka@s3group.com         Subject:        iSCSI: draft vs. 14 typos, suggestion, questions

   Hello Julian!

We'd like to inform you about some TYPO errors, some
SUGGESTIONS to clarify something / explain something
better and also to ask few QUESTIONS (and sorry for so long
email).

*** Section 4.3 : TYPO & SUGGESTION
In draft vs. 14 possibility to negotiate some parameters
(e.g. TargetAddress) more than once.

Vs. 14 says:
    Neither the initiator nor the target should attempt to declare or
    negotiate a parameter more than once during login except for
    responses to specific keys that explicitly allow repeated key decla-
    rations (e.g. TargetAddress). If detected by the target this MUST
    result in a Login reject (initiator error). The initiator MUST drop
    the connection
TYPO: Missing fullstop at the end of a paragraph.

Vs. 13 said:
    Neither the initiator nor the target should attempt to negotiate a
    parameter more than once during login. If detected by the target this
    MUST result in a Login reject (initiator error). The initiator MUST
    drop the connection.

SUGGESTION: However the change resulted in badly-readable paragraph,
because the reader can be confused and think, that sentence "If
detected ... MUST result in Login reject" is applicable to parameters,
for which "repeated key declaration IS allowed". I would suggest to
write "attempt to re-negotiated other parameter" instead of "this" in
that sentence.
+++

How about the text:

Neither the initiator nor the target should attempt to declare or negotiate a parameter more than once during login except for responses to specific keys that explicitly allow repeated key decla-rations (e.g. TargetAddress). If an attempt to re-negotiate/re-declare parameters  not speciffically allowed is detected by the tar-get the target MUST respond with Login reject (initiator error); if detected by the initiator the initiator MUST drop the connection.
 

+++
*** Section 6.5  : TYPO & SUGGESTION
TYPO: In paragraph explaining initator behaviour
bad ALIGN (possibilities a) and b) not aligned verticaly!
SUGGESTION: We would recommend to move explanation of
target's SNACK processing into the chapter about SNACK. Here
it could be/is confusing - We would say, that target's reaction
to recieved SNACK is not dependent on whether initiator sends
this SNACK in response to corrupted-digest data PDU or from
(any) other reason. Or is it? */
+++I do not see the missalignment and I do not understand the comment
The behaviour on SNACK is specific to this case and it outlines the things target has to do depending on the target state
+++
*** Section 6.11 : TYPO
(probably) TYPO: What does "initiators detect protocol errors ..." mean
in the first paragraph of section 6.11? Do initiators communicate to each
other?? If not, I would suggest rather "initiator detects ...".
+++ will fix text +++
*** Section 6.11 : QUESTION
Draft says:
   When the session timeout (the connection state timeout for the last
   failed connection) happens on the target, it takes the following
   actions:

     - Resets or closes the TCP connections (closes the session).
     - Aborts all Tasks in the task set for the corresponding initi-
       ator.

What does the "corresponding initiator" mean? We think (:-)), that
there is only one initiator for the session. The only possible
explanation we see for that paragraph is, that the target should
abort also other tasks of the same in __other__ sessions, but
why?
+++ your interpretation is correct - the statement means the initiator that "owned" the session.
Are you suggesting other wording?
++++
*** Section 6.12.1 : TYPO
In sentence "Sequence reception timeout is generally a
   large enough value to allow the data sequence transfer to be com-
   plete."
should be "completed" instead, (at least IMHO).
+++ will foix +++
*** Section 6.13 : TYPO
"Digest failure recovery is comprises ... " is TYPO IMHO. I would say
"Digest failure recovery comprises ..." only.
+++ will fix text +++
Best regards
&
Thanks for replay in advance

Tomas Bartusek & Ivan Pavelka

--------------------------------------
Tomas Bartusek

SW Engineer
Tomas.Bartusek@s3group.com

Tel:+420-2-33099184

Silicon & Software Systems     www.s3group.com       Fax:+420-2-33099151
Philips building, Safrankova 1, 155 00 Prague 5, Czech Republic