Resolution of comment on temporary initiators

Robert Snively rsnively at Brocade.COM
Thu May 25 13:51:42 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Robert Snively <rsnively at Brocade.COM>
*
Bill,

I accept this as a valid contribution to the comment resolution.
I had thought this was so obvious that no one could have blown it,
but it is clear that this needs to be explicitly stated in the
standard.

Many thanks,

Bob

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Bill Martin [mailto:bmartin at gadzoox.com]
>  Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:12 AM
>  To: 'Robert Snively'
>  Cc: 'fc at network.com'; 't10 at t10.org'
>  Subject: RE: Resolution of comment on temporary initiators
>  
>  
>  Bob:
>  
>  The issue is not that the bits cannot both be set.  The 
>  issue is that when
>  both bits are set an initiator that does a PRLI, SHALL NOT reject the
>  response.  This is not covered in 6.2.6.11, or in any other 
>  place that I
>  find.  The reaction to both bits being set is not documented 
>  anywhere.
>  
>  Bill Martin
>  Phone:  (916) 772-3658
>  Sr. Principal Engineer				email:
>  bmartin at gadzoox.com
>  Fibre Channel Standards
>  Gadzoox Networks Inc.
>  
>  
>  	-----Original Message-----
>  	From:	Robert Snively [SMTP:rsnively at Brocade.COM]
>  	Sent:	Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:43 AM
>  	To:	t10 at t10.org; fc at network.com
>  	Subject:	Resolution of comment on temporary initiators
>  
>  	*
>  	* From the fc reflector, posted by:
>  	* Robert Snively <rsnively at Brocade.COM>
>  	*
>  	I have put the following text into the latest revision of the
>  comment
>  	response document for FCP-2 (note yet posted).  Any complaints?
>  
>  	FC-MI multi-initiator resolution (Technical)
>  
>  	   Section TBD:
>  		Some devices attempting to participate in a 
>  multi-initiator
>  reject
>  	PRLIs 
>  		if both the initiator and target bits are set.  This is
>  wrong. Some 
>  		devices may also reject the presence of any 
>  other initiator.
>  
>  		This needs to be checked in FCP-2. The 
>  particular issue is
>  whether 
>  		or not FCP-2 has been explicit in the requirements for
>  supporting 
>  		multi-initiator operation and temporary 
>  initiator operation.
>  
>  		FCP-2 will discuss it further, and, if any changes are
>  required 
>  		to FCP-2 or to FC-MI, a proposal will be presented.
>  
>  	   Response:
>  		Section 6.2.6.11 explicitly requires the 
>  setting of both 
>  		bits 4 and 5 to be allowed. This was also true in FCP, 
>  		clause 6.2.6.9. The devices not meeting this 
>  requirement 
>  		are not compliant with FCP or with FCP-2. 
>  
>  		The present revision of FC-MI does not address this
>  question. 
>  		There does not appear to be any test in SANMark that
>  specifically 
>  		verifies this capability or justifies this failure.
>  
>  		No change is required.
>  
>  	Bob Snively
>  	Brocade Communications           Phone  408 487 8135
>  	1901 Guadalupe Parkway
>  	San Jose, CA 95131               Email   rsnively at brocade.com
>  
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list