NEW FCP_RESP IUS

Kurt Chan kc at core.rose.hp.com
Thu May 4 14:24:05 PDT 1995


| I have been following this thread with great interest and 
| fear.  
|
| Currently the log pages are optional and the logging
| of any type of condition is poorly defined or not define
| at all.  It seems to me that this type of error delivery
| mechanism is poor.
| 
| The service responses and delivery mechanisms to the periheral 
| drivers must be consistent in their behavior.  The 
| peripheral drivers should have no knowledge of the transport
| mechanisms (FCP, SBP, SIP etc) to the logical unit and should 
| only know about SAM behavior and the behavior model that the
| device presents (SBC, SCC, etc).  

Bill,

I agree with all of the above (except the part about being afraid).
My impression is that Charles felt in order to NOT require FC-AL to
deviate from SAM, we needed the FCP_RSP confirmation.  I agree that
requiring log pages for link-specific reasons is unattractive.

I interpret your comments as agreement that we should focus on
requiring FCP to provide the proper mapping to FC-AL/PH such that SAM
can be made truly link-independent.  This common objective is why I
think Charles' proposal has some merit.

All I was asking for is a clarification of the term "transferred" in
SAM, since some links/protocols treat the term "transferred" to mean
"transmitted", while others means "transmitted and acknowledged".

Regards,
Kurt.




More information about the T10 mailing list