Subject: RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:20:59 +0100
From: "Banther, Michael" <michael.banther@hp.com>
To: "David Peterson" <David.Peterson@mcdata.com>
Cc: <t11_3@t11.org>, <t10@t10.org>
X-Message-Number: 7309
Formatted message: HTML-formatted message
Attachment #1: banther_michael.vcf

Hi Dave,
HP is working with a vendor to determine if they can support CISC in a
way that we can use.  It's an active discussion.  However, until we
achieve some clarity with them, HP cannot state a preference.  I'm
hoping to have something solid by the November FCP-4 meeting.
Regards,
Michael Banther
Hewlett-Packard Ltd.
+44 117 312 9503
________________________________
From: owner-t10@t10.org [mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: 08 October 2006 20:34
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)