Subject: [T11.3] Re: FCP-3/FC-LS: Use of REC
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:14:38 -0500
From: "David Peterson" <David.Peterson@mcdata.com>
To: "Neil Wanamaker" <Neil_Wanamaker@pmc-sierra.com>, <t10@t10.org>,
   <t11_3@t11.org>
Formatted message: HTML-formatted message

So, since RES is now obsolete I would propose:
a. Exchange originating S_ID field value shall match the S_ID field
value in the FC Header, or
b. obsolete the Exchange originating S_ID field in the REC payload (and
the associated address fields in the Reply too).
...Dave 
(no disclaimer)
________________________________
	From: Neil Wanamaker [mailto:Neil_Wanamaker@pmc-sierra.com] 
	Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:56 PM
	To: David Peterson; t10@t10.org; t11_3@t11.org
	Subject: RE: [T11.3] FCP-3/FC-LS: Use of REC
	The presence of the S_ID in the request is a legacy of having
been adapted from RES, which had a similar capability.
	Neil
________________________________
	From: t11_3-bounce@mailman.listserve.com
[mailto:t11_3-bounce@mailman.listserve.com] On Behalf Of David Peterson
	Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:25 AM
	To: t10@t10.org; t11_3@t11.org
	Subject: [T11.3] FCP-3/FC-LS: Use of REC
	Howdy,
	FC-LS currently specifies the Exchange originating S_ID field in
the REC payload may be different than the address identifier of the
source (and destination) of the REC. From FC-LS rev 1.2 subclause
4.2.55.1:
	"This ELS shall be used only for purposes specific to an FC-4.
The REC (Read Exchange Concise) Extended Link Service requests an
Nx_Port to return Exchange information for the RX_ID and OX_ID
originated by the S_ID specified in the Payload of the request Sequence.
The S_ID specified in the Payload of the request Sequence may differ
from address identifiers of both the source and destination of the REC
request itself."
	This (third party) capability is problematic for FC-IFR
implementations, since the information needed to perform address
translation may not be known.
	Does anyone have an inplementation where the REC payload
Exchange originating S_ID field does not match the S_ID in the FC
Header?
	Thanks...Dave
	(no disclaimer)