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

David Peterson David.Peterson at mcdata.com
Tue Oct 10 12:14:11 PDT 2006


Formatted message: <A HREF="r0610103_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</A>

Howdy Paul,
Option a requires that CISC be implemented and used for Class 3 service.
Option b strongly suggests that CISC be implemented and used for Class 3
service (i.e., it is not required).
...Dave
(no disclaimer)
________________________________
From: Paul Wassenberg [mailto:paulw at marvell.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:39 PM
To: David Peterson; t10 at t10.org
Cc: t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
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