Re: ASC/ASCQ for implicit termination (was iSCSI - Errata - to 20)

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

So mentioning that the codes exists
and referring the reader to SPC3 is acceptable? If yes I can put that statement
in and we are done.

Julo

Black_David@emc.com

11/09/2003 01:36

To	Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc	ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject	ASC/ASCQ for implicit termination (was  iSCSI - Errata - to 20)

Julian,

> > > -the UA related text for abort (in both relevant places)
> > 
> > Once WG Last Call closes on the command ordering draft (assuming
it
closes
> > without objection to this point) a sentence saying which ASC/ASCQ
code
T10
> > has defined for this case needs to be added in both places.
> > 
> I think that the agreement reached at the time was that we won't give
the
codes
> (other SCSI documents do the same - the argument being to minimize
fixes
needed
> in case of change). 

The concern on the other side is that it's hard to make the connection
between
these iSCSI implicit termination cases and the specific ASC/ASCQ code that's
been
defined.  I'm not suggesting a "MUST" requirement but rather
a statement
that
this ASC/ASCQ exists and is appropriate for these cases.  While T10
controls
both the existence and appropriateness of this ASC/ASCQ, I think both are
likely to be stable.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508)
293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------