Re: iSCSI: Question about ErrorRecoveryLevel

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

> Every where within-command and within-connection recovery is discussed,
> each of them is described as optional. The quote above doesn't say that
> level 1 MUST consist of both within-connection and within-command
> recovery.

[ The error in grammar is already fixed in the working version. ]

The reason MUST language was not used is because the text in question is
defining the terminology, but is not phrased in such a way as to place requirements 
on implementations.  It is similar to several terminology descriptions in chapter 2.

My intent when I wrote that text was - because the negotiation of the 
ErrorRecoveryLevel follows the regular negotiation rules (i.e. don't originate
a proposal that you cannot support, and the result function is "minimum"), no
additional MUST/SHOULD/MAY language is necessary.  But if you recommend
explicit text, I suggest we add the following at the end of the last para of 
text in 5.13 -

When a defined value of ErrorRecoveryLevel is proposed by an originator
 in a text negotiation, the originator MUST support the functionality defined for the 
ErrorRecoveryLevel or functionality corresponding to any defined value numerically 
less than the proposed.  When a defined value of ErrorRecoveryLevel is returned 
by a responder in a text negotiation, the responder MUST support the functionality
corresponding to the ErrorRecoveryLevel it is accepting.


Thanks.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Studenmund" <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>
To: "Parthi" <pamanick@npd.hcltech.com>
Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Question about ErrorRecoveryLevel


> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Parthi wrote:
> 
> > Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question about within-command and within-connection recovery and
> > > ErrorRecoveryLevel. Mainly what does ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 imply. I think
> > > the answer is that it implies either one (or both) of within-command and
> > > within-connection recovery methods are supported. Is that correct?
> > >
> > > i.e. A, B, or A & B. ?
> >
> > A & B is  correct .
> >
> > Error RecoveryLevel  1 implies  Digest failure recovery.
> >
> > Digest failure recovery is  consist of two recovery classes,
> > Within-Connection recovery class and Within-Command recovery class.
> 
> Well, besides the grammar error you're quoting from the spec, that quote
> doesn't answer the question. That text essentially gave rise to my
> question. :-)
> 
> Every where within-command and within-connection recovery is discussed,
> each of them is described as optional. The quote above doesn't say that
> level 1 MUST consist of both within-connection and within-command
> recovery.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Bill
> 
>