|
|
Title: Message
Provide the
name and values for the ASC/ASCQ code, and refer to
SPC3
as
the authority where it is defined. As I said earlier,
we can be
reasonably confident that the values will be stable.
Thanks,
--David
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
----------------------------------------------------
Home
Last updated: Wed Sep 17 10:19:38 2003
12894 messages in chronological order
|
