As part  of my action item to review IBM LB comments to ensure there is enough information to determine to what text the comments apply, I am going through the commented pdf comment by comment.  I have turned on track changes in 08-095r4.xls and will upload it as a document when finished.

I found that the following comment was lost in the conversion to text.  

Please add this as IBM-L3
{Begin IBM-L3}
3.1.56 reservation loss:
An event caused by the release of a reserve/release method reservation (see SPC-2) or by the transition within the device server from the state where a persistent reservation holder exists to the state where a persistent reservation holder does not exist (see SPC-4).

Comment 1: add:

A preempt of a reservation is not considered a reservation loss if a new reservation is created as part of that preempt.  <<to distinguish between CORL and CORP

Comment 2: Shouldn't this state where one of the reservation participants no longer is a part of the reservation?  I am thinking of the case where a CORL is set and a single initiator from an RO type of persistent reservation is preempted.

There seems to be a hole in the clear on reservation loss vs. clear on reservation preempt.
{End IBM-L3}

Thanks,

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/