00-140r0 - Bug in SAM-2 Task Identifier Definition

JoeBre at Exabyte.COM JoeBre at Exabyte.COM
Tue Feb 29 09:30:32 PST 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* JoeBre at Exabyte.COM
*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF82D9.AA824E26
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> The Problems 
> 
> Replacing the Logical Unit Identifier object with its definition in 
> the Target's Task Identifier definition we see that: 
> 
>     Task Identifier 
>       Untagged Task Identifier = Initiator Identifier 
>                                  + Target Identifier 
>                                  + Logical Unit Number 
>       Tagged Task Identifier = Untagged Task Identifier + Tag 

I'm not sure that I see the problem here. Would a target not have a
means of detecting what his Target Identifier was? 

It seems to me that the FCP issue that you mention may not be a problem
for just this reason. 

If this 'problem' is deemed severe enough to warrant a correction, I'd
opt for solution #1, wherein the Target Identifier is removed from the
Task Identifier. I prefer this solution over solution #2 (scrapping the
Task ID, and reintroducing the nexus nomenclature), for two reasons - 

- SAM is already written in terms of Task Identifiers 
- The Task Identifer concept seems intuitive to me, wheras the nexus
concept seems counterintuitive. 

YMMV, 
Joe Breher 
Exabyte Corp 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF82D9.AA824E26
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

RE: 00-140r0 - Bug in SAM-2 Task Identifier Definition > The Problems 
> 
> Replacing the Logical Unit Identifier object = with its definition in 
> the Target's Task Identifier definition we see = that: 
> 
>     Task Identifier 
>       Untagged = Task Identifier =3D Initiator Identifier 
>         ;           ;            + = Target Identifier 
>         ;           ;            + = Logical Unit Number 
>       Tagged Task = Identifier =3D Untagged Task Identifier + Tag I'm not sure that I see the problem here. Would a = target not have a means of detecting what his Target Identifier was? = It seems to me that the FCP issue that you mention = may not be a problem for just this reason. If this 'problem' is deemed severe enough to warrant = a correction, I'd opt for solution #1, wherein the Target Identifier is = removed from the Task Identifier. I prefer this solution over solution = #2 (scrapping the Task ID, and reintroducing the nexus nomenclature), = for two reasons - - SAM is already written in terms of Task = Identifiers 
- The Task Identifer concept seems intuitive to me, = wheras the nexus concept seems counterintuitive. YMMV, 
Joe Breher 
Exabyte Corp 
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF82D9.AA824E26--




More information about the T10 mailing list