Backwards Incompatible fix for PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT SPEC_I_PT additionalparameter data bug

Holt, Keith kholt at lsil.com
Thu Jul 24 07:59:54 PDT 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Holt, Keith" <kholt at lsil.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_01C351F4.3DEDDE18
Content-Type: text/plain

Ralph, 

I confirmed that we have implemented the ability to register multiple
initiator ports with a single PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command and find
the change proposed in 03-210r1 to be unacceptable.

Regards, 

Keith Holt 
LSI Logic Storage Systems Inc. 
keith.holt at lsil.com 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ralph Weber [ mailto:ralphoweber at compuserve.com
 ] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:19 AM 
To: T10, Reflector 
Subject: Backwards Incompatible fix for PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT SPEC_I_PT

additionalparameter data bug 


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* Ralph Weber <ralphoweber at compuserve.com> 
* 


I have uploaded: 

   ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.03/03-210r1.pdf
<ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.03/03-210r1.pdf>  

This proposal has been revised based on discussions during 
the July CAP working group. As a part of that discussion, 
the author of the original proposal (01-100r4) that 03-210r1 
seeks to modify in a backwards incompatible manner agreed 
that the backwards incompatible change could be made. 

The backwards incompatible change affects only those 
Persistent Reservations implementations that allow a 
single PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command to register more 
than one initiator port. 

The ability to register multiple initiator ports with a 
single PR OUT command has only been in SPC-3 for the past 
15 months (1.25 years, since April, 2002, SPC-3 r06). 
It is a relatively specialized feature. The company that 
requested its definition has not yet implemented it 
sufficiently to find the backwards incompatible change 
unacceptable. This leads to the belief that the change 
can be tolerated throughout the industry. 

If your company has implemented the ability to register 
multiple initiator ports with a single PERSISTENT RESERVE 
OUT command and finds the change proposed in 03-210r1 
unacceptable, please notify this reflector or the 
September CAP working group. 

Regards, 

.Ralph 



* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C351F4.3DEDDE18
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

 RE: Backwards Incompatible fix for PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT = SPEC_I_PT additionalparameter data bug Ralph, I confirmed that we have implemented the ability to = register multiple initiator ports with a single PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT = command and find the change proposed in 03-210r1 to be = unacceptable. Regards, Keith Holt 
LSI Logic Storage Systems Inc. 
keith.holt at lsil.com 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Ralph Weber [mailto:ralphoweber at compuserve= .com] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:19 AM 
To: T10, Reflector 
Subject: Backwards Incompatible fix for PERSISTENT = RESERVE OUT SPEC_I_PT 
additionalparameter data bug 
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted = by: 
* Ralph Weber = <ralphoweber at compuserve.com> 
* 
I have uploaded:    ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.03/03-210r1.pdf This proposal has been revised based on discussions = during 
the July CAP working group. As a part of that = discussion, 
the author of the original proposal (01-100r4) that = 03-210r1 
seeks to modify in a backwards incompatible manner = agreed 
that the backwards incompatible change could be = made. The backwards incompatible change affects only = those 
Persistent Reservations implementations that allow = a 
single PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT command to register = more 
than one initiator port. The ability to register multiple initiator ports with = a 
single PR OUT command has only been in SPC-3 for the = past 
15 months (1.25 years, since April, 2002, SPC-3 = r06). 
It is a relatively specialized feature. The company = that 
requested its definition has not yet implemented it = 
sufficiently to find the backwards incompatible = change 
unacceptable. This leads to the belief that the = change 
can be tolerated throughout the industry. If your company has implemented the ability to = register 
multiple initiator ports with a single PERSISTENT = RESERVE 
OUT command and finds the change proposed in = 03-210r1 
unacceptable, please notify this reflector or = the 
September CAP working group. Regards, .Ralph 

* 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message = with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to = majordomo at t10.org 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C351F4.3DEDDE18--




More information about the T10 mailing list