[T11.3] Re: FCP-3: Obsolete FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL

Matthew Jacob mj at feral.com
Wed Sep 29 11:29:24 PDT 2004



I would prefer it to stay in place so that existing implementations that 
look at the transport header don't have to go to the expense in h/w or 
s/w to interpret the payload (the CDB).


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, David Peterson (Eng) wrote:

> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "David Peterson \(Eng\)" <david_peterson at cnt.com>
> *
> Howdy All,
>
> During the discussion of T10/03-393 at the recent CAP meeting the notion
> of obsoleting the FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_READ_DL fields in FCP-3
> was mentioned.
>
> A bit of history that got us to this point:
>
> The FCP-3 working has been looking at an issue where the FCP_DL value is
> not equal to the CDB transfer length. The goal is/was to provide a
> method to report this condition to the upper layer(s). The need for this
> method drops significantly if the FCP_DL fields are obsolete. The method
> may still have merit since there are other conditions such as the WRDATA
> bit is set to one in a read type command and vice-versa. But no one has
> really identified this is a problem case to date.
>
> Additional reasons to obsolete such as "its redundent with the CDB
> transfer length" and "FCP is the only SCSI transport protocol that
> specifies a data length" have been mentioned.
>
> Please indicate any preferences for or against obsoleting the FCP_DL and
> FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL fields along with your reasoning.
>
> Thanks...Dave
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>

To Unsubscribe:
mailto:t11_3-request at mail.t11.org?subject=unsubscribe





More information about the T10 mailing list