option A is a requirement.
option B is a strong suggestion, but
not requirement. Vendors should move to being able to do this. This
is the weasel wording to allow existing implementations that cannot comply
with the desire to comply with the standard.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt@us.ibm.com
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
"Paul Wassenberg"
<paulw@marvell.com> Sent by: owner-t10@t10.org
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).