[T11.3] RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT

Paul Wassenberg paulw at marvell.com
Mon Oct 9 17:39:15 PDT 2006


Formatted message: <A HREF="r0610094_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</A>

Hi Dave,
Could you clarify the difference between options A & B?
Regards,
Paul Wassenberg
Marvell Semiconductor
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 12:34 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Cc: t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Howdy All,
At the last FCP-4 working group meeting I presented a proposal to
request the use of continuously increasing SEQ_CNT (CISC) for Class 3
service.
While most believe requiring continuously increasing SEQ_CNT for Class 3
service is a good idea, one vendor indicated that none of their
implementations support CISC, and another vendor was concerned about the
requirement.
As such, we have the following options:
a. require CISC for Class 3 service. This means that existing
implementations can claim compliance to a prior standard (e.g., FCP-3);
b. specify that CISC should be used for Class 3 service;
c. no change (i.e., CISC is not required except for streamed Sequences).
My preference would be option a.
What say ye?
...Dave
(no disclaimer)



More information about the T10 mailing list