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)