Subject: RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:39:15 -0700
From: "Paul Wassenberg" <paulw@marvell.com>
To: "David Peterson" <David.Peterson@mcdata.com>, <t10@t10.org>
Cc: <t11_3@t11.org>
X-Message-Number: 7307
Formatted message: HTML-formatted message

Hi Dave,
Could you clarify the difference between options A & B?
Regards,
Paul Wassenberg
Marvell Semiconductor
________________________________
From: owner-t10@t10.org [mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 12:34 PM
To: t10@t10.org
Cc: t11_3@t11.org
Subject: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Howdy All,
At the last FCP-4 working group meeting I presented a proposal to
request the use of continuously increasing SEQ_CNT (CISC) for Class 3
service.
While most believe requiring continuously increasing SEQ_CNT for Class 3
service is a good idea, one vendor indicated that none of their
implementations support CISC, and another vendor was concerned about the
requirement.
As such, we have the following options:
a. require CISC for Class 3 service. This means that existing
implementations can claim compliance to a prior standard (e.g., FCP-3);
b. specify that CISC should be used for Class 3 service;
c. no change (i.e., CISC is not required except for streamed Sequences).
My preference would be option a.
What say ye?
...Dave
(no disclaimer)