RE: iSCSI: v15 R2T and DATA-OUT

[Sanjay Goyal <sanjay_goyal@ivivity.com>]

Hi

 if I read  draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-15-working.pdf

 from Julian's site

 

on page 159,

 Data-In does have TTT field for the posAck case, when A bit is set to 1.

 

Regards
Sanjay Goyal

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:40 AM
To: Rod Harrison
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: v15 R2T and DATA-OUT

Rod,

I will fix the wording  - but you mentioned also TTT as part of Data-In - I was just commenting that there is no such thing.
As for the issue - if you check it when receiving R2T then you don't have to check it every time you copy it.
The word copy is just fine - I just have to make sure that checking on R2T is mandated.

Julo

"Rod Harrison" <rod.harrison@windriver.com> 07/25/2002 04:51 AM

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:        <ips@ece.cmu.edu>         Subject:        RE: iSCSI: v15 R2T and DATA-OUT

Julian,

                I think you've misread my message. I was questioning how the
initiator should handle the LUN between an R2T and the DATA-OUT(s)
that satisfy it.

                DATA-OUT says copy the LUN from the command PDU, R2T says copy the
LUN from the R2T to the DATA-OUT. Which is correct if the R2T contains
a different LUN than that in the command PDU?

                - Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:00 PM
To: Rod Harrison
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: v15 R2T and DATA-OUT


There is no TTT for data-In. Julo



                     "Rod Harrison"
                     <rod.harrison@win        To:
<ips@ece.cmu.edu>
                     driver.com>              cc:
                     Sent by:                 Subject:  iSCSI: v15
R2T and DATA-OUT
                     owner-ips@ece.cmu
                     .edu


                     07/24/2002 10:24
                     PM





Folks,

            There is a potential inconsistency in the description of
the
use of
the LUN field in DATA-OUT and R2T in the working v15 draft.

            9.7.3 Target Transfer Tag, for DATA-IN last paragraph
says ...

            "If the Target Transfer Tag is provided, then the LUN
field
MUST hold
a valid value and be consistent with whatever was specified with the
command;"

            9.8.5 Target Transfer Tag, for R2T says ...

            "The Target Transfer Tag and LUN are copied in the
outgoing
data PDUs
and are used by the target only."

            Potentially a target could return a different LUN field
in the
R2T,
for perhaps some funky LUN mapping or other internal reason expecting
it to be copied to the DATA-OUT as per the R2T text. I suspect we just
want to say this is not allowed and the LUN field MUST be the same as
the command PDU.

            Either way I think we need to indicate what is expected
of the
initiator if the LUN field in the R2T does not match the LUN in the
command PDU.

            Apologies for not spotting this before the end of last
call.

            - Rod