FCP-2 Rev 8

Dave Peterson dap at cisco.com
Fri Oct 25 06:28:55 PDT 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Dave Peterson" <dap at cisco.com>
*
Howdy Kevin,

There is no equivalent document with change bars. The change areas are
listed in the message below and in the related docs.

The document was inconsistent regarding which reason code to use and a
single reason code is desirable.
This inconsistency has been identified in 02-267 for quite a while now and
no one yet has objected to using
"Logical error". If a vendor has implemented "Unable to perform command
request" for REC they need to speak up ASAP.

I believe "Logical error" is the appropriate response and is used in all
instances in the doc except in the REC clause where "Unable to perform
command request" was specified.

To FCP-2 error detection and recovery capable target implementors:

1. REC Reject reason code =
	a. Logical error
	b. Unable to perform command request

2. SRR Reject reason code =
	a. Logical error (I believe this is the appropriate response)
	b. Unable to perform command request (currently specified in the document)

...dap

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin D Butt [mailto:kdbutt at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:50 PM
> To: Dave Peterson
> Cc: owner-t10 at t10.org; T10 Reflector
> Subject: Re: FCP-2 Rev 8
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Is there an equivalent pdf to fcp2r08.pdf that has change bars so the
> changes are easily identified?
>
> I did notice that you have changed the reject Reason Code for a rejected
> REC.  This would cause a code change for all those who have already
> implemented this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin D. Butt
> Fibre Channel & SCSI Architect
> IBM Tape Microcode,
> 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ  85744
> Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-2869, Fax: 799-4138, Email:
> kdbutt at us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
>                       "Dave Peterson"
>
>                       <dap at cisco.com>          To:       "T10
> Reflector" <t10 at t10.org>
>
>                       Sent by:                 cc:
>
>                       owner-t10 at t10.org        Subject:  FCP-2
> Rev 8
>
>
>
>
>                       10/23/2002 03:11
>
>                       PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Dave Peterson" <dap at cisco.com>
> *
> Howdy,
>
> FCP-2 Rev 8 has been uploaded -
> ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/drafts/fcp2/fcp2r08.pdf
>
> Change areas for review are:
>
> - Clearing effects tables 4 and 5
> - I_T nexus loss notification (clause 4.10)
> - Transport Reset notificatin (clause 4.11)
> - re-definition of RR_TOV and ULP_TOV
> - REC as an Extended link service (clause 6.5)
>
> I would like to defer specifying task retry identification is mandatory to
> FCP-3.
> This issue is well understood by the various FCP-2 implementors at this
> time.
>
> The dual use of RR_TOV has become more of a problem with the introduction
> of
> FCP-2 error detection and recovery.
> This problem should be addressed in FCP-3.
>
> I believe the document is in good shape and thus am not asking for another
> (leter ballot) review cycle.
>
> Related docs:
>
> FCP-2: Issues to Resolve - ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.02/02-267r2.pdf
>
> Response to HP INCITS No Vote on FCP-2 -
> ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.02/02-440r0.pdf
>
> ...dap
>
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>
>
>
>
>

*
* 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