NEW FCP_RESP IUS
kc at core.rose.hp.com
Thu May 4 14:24:05 PDT 1995
| I have been following this thread with great interest and
| 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).
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".
More information about the T10