FCP-3 & Process Associators

David Peterson (Eng) david_peterson at cnt.com
Fri Mar 4 07:56:31 PST 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "David Peterson \(Eng\)" <david_peterson at cnt.com>
*
Howdy,

Bob is correct. Can't obsolete the Process Associator fields, unless
someone wants to take another whack at obsoleting Process Associators
(again) in now FC-LS, and is successful:)

I would not be opposed to "Process_Associators are not used in the Fibre
Channel protocol."

Since the text already specifies the ORIGINATOR PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID
and RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID bits shall be zero, I'm fine, but
any proposal for discussion is welcome.

Thanks...Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of
Bob.Nixon at emulex.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:23 PM
To: roweber at IEEE.org; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: FCP-3 & Process Associators

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Bob.Nixon at Emulex.Com
*
Hi, Ralph,

I don't think FCP-3 can "obsolete" the PRLI fields related to
Process_Associators... They are owned by FC-LS and are not obsolete
there.

6.3.2 could be shortened to just the first half of its second sentence:
"Process_Associators are not used in the Fibre Channel protocol". (The
second paragraph of 6.3.2 appears to have lost its parent context looong
ago, and never found its way home. It won't be missed.)

FCP-3 already specifies in the text that the ORIGINATOR
PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID and RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID bits in
PRLI shall be zero. Maybe this should be added within table 9 as well
(like it is for READ FCP_XFER_RDY DISABLED). Perhaps also the ORIGINATOR
PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field and RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field should
be qualified as "Ignored".

Best regards,
   - bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]On Behalf Of Ralph O.
Weber
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:04 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: FCP-3 & Process Associators


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ralph O. Weber" <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Dave,

Since FCP-3 does not allow the Association header bit to be one in
DF_CTL, should the PRLI ORIGINATOR PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID and
RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID bits be allowed to be one? Maybe they
should be defined as Obsolete shall be zero.

If that is done, then the ORIGINATOR PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field and
RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field would need to be made Obsolete too.

Finally, maybe subclause 6.3.2 (Process_Associator requirements) should
be removed too.

I am not wedded to a specific answer on this, but I would write a Letter
Ballot comment on it. It probably is better to deal with the question
now.

All the best,

.Ralph

David Peterson (Eng) wrote:

>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* "David Peterson \(Eng\)" <david_peterson at cnt.com>
>*
>Howdy All,
>
>FCP-3 rev 03e has been uploaded. Keep in mind last technical input for
>FCP-3 is set for March 2005 meeting cycle. If you have any FCP-3 items 
>you want addressed please be prepared to discuss them at next weeks 
>meeting.
>
>http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/fcp3/fcp3r03e.pdf
>
>Thanks...Dave
>*
>* 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
*
* 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