RE: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks

["Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>]

Yes, I noticed my typo of "two" vs. "three" but too late.

Below you say that the ordering is iSCSI ordering but section 6.5 is saying
SCSI ordering (queued commands is SCSI). So, that leaves me a little
confused as to what this paragraph is trying to say, especially when the
"status is never communicated back ... to the initiator".

I'm probably mis-understanding something. It appears as though this is just
a method of implementing within the target.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks


Comments below.
--
Mallikarjun

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddy Quicksall" <Eddy_Quicksall@ivivity.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:16 AM
Subject: iSCSI: Implicit Termination of Tasks


> There are two sections titled Implicit Termination of Tasks but they
are
> slightly different. Which is correct?

Both are correct and consistent.

>
> Section 6.5 lists 4 items but section 10.14.5 only lists two.

I'm seeing three in 10.14.5.....

Even though 6.5 lists all the four cases, it makes it clear that the
check condition is to be employed only for three cases - and
only those three are listed by 10.14.5.  Perhaps the text could have
been a little bit more explicit about this distinction.

>
> If 6.5 is correct, why is item D not included in the unit attention?
SAM-3
> says:

It's not so much a SAM issue.  The issue we considered was how to ensure
iSCSI-standard ordered delivery of commands in the face of errors.  The
ordered delivery of commands does not make sense for case (d) - that of
creating a new session - ordering is not guaranteed anyway across
sessions.