FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Kevin D Butt
kdbutt at us.ibm.com
Tue Oct 10 11:46:36 PDT 2006
Formatted message: <A HREF="r0610104_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</A>
option A is a requirement.
option B is a strong suggestion, but not requirement. Vendors should move
to being able to do this. This is the weasel wording to allow existing
implementations that cannot comply with the desire to comply with the
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
"Paul Wassenberg" <paulw at marvell.com>
Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org
10/09/2006 05:39 PM
"David Peterson" <David.Peterson at mcdata.com>, <t10 at t10.org>
<t11_3 at t11.org>
RE: FCP-4: Continuously Increasing SEQ_CNT
Could you clarify the difference between options A & B?
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of David
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
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
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?
More information about the T10