Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:14:11 -0600
From: "David Peterson" <David.Peterson@mcdata.com>
To: "Paul Wassenberg" <paulw@marvell.com>, <t10@t10.org>
Cc: t11_3@t11.org
Subject: [T11.3] RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Formatted message: HTML-formatted message

Howdy Paul,
Option a requires that CISC be implemented and used for Class 3 service.
Option b strongly suggests that CISC be implemented and used for Class 3
service (i.e., it is not required).
...Dave
(no disclaimer)
________________________________
From: Paul Wassenberg [mailto:paulw@marvell.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:39 PM
To: David Peterson; t10@t10.org
Cc: t11_3@t11.org
Subject: RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
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)