[T11.3] RE: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency

Neil Wanamaker Neil_Wanamaker at pmc-sierra.com
Sun Mar 18 17:31:07 PDT 2007


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Neil Wanamaker <Neil_Wanamaker at pmc-sierra.com>
*
It could be argued that FCP-2 recovery existed long before FC-LS, and the
inconsistency was created when the the FCP-2 link services got copied into
FC-FS. 
Neil Wanamaker
PMC-Sierra
100-2700 Production Way
Burnaby, BC V5A 4X1
604.415.6053 x 2435
Neil_Wanamaker at pmc-sierra.com
-----Original Message-----
From: t11_3-bounces at listserve.com [mailto:t11_3-bounces at listserve.com] On
Behalf Of Robert Snively
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:31 PM
To: Pappal, Sam; Dave Peterson; t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: [T11.3] RE: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency
Sam,
FCP-4 makes use of the tools provided by the lower layer for recovery
capabilities and for verification of continuing forward progress, as well as
various clearing functions.
These are actions mapped from the SCSI Architecture to the FCP-4.  So yes, it
should be using the values presented by FC-LS.	Unfortunately, through a case
of parallel evolution and early implementations, this discrepancy escaped
notice.  Dave's concern is whether correcting the discrepancy in the
standards will cause any implementers undue grief.  Implementations will tell
the story of which standard should be corrected and what correction should be
made, since it really doesn't matter very much architecturally which value is
selected.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Pappal, Sam
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:33 AM
To: Dave Peterson; t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: RE: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pappal, Sam" <Sam.Pappal at gdc4s.com>
*
Maybe I'm missing something here but isn't FCP-4 at a layer above the FC-LS
fibre channel layer and somewhat independent?  If it's a FCP-4 layer detected
unknown exchange then the reason code returned corresponds with the FCP-4
layer (logical error), and if it's a FC-LS layer detected exchange unknown
then the FC-LS layer code is returned (Unable to perform command request). 
Sam 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:15 AM
To: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "David Peterson" <dpeterso at brocade.com>
*
FCP-2/3/4 error detection implementers,
FC-LS and FCP-4 are inconsistent regarding the proper reason code to return
if the Originator S_ID,=20 OX_ID, or RX_ID fields are inconsistent (i.e., the
Exchange is unknown).
FC-LS specifies the reason code shall be 09h "Unable to perform command
request". Note this reason code has been specified since FC-FS.
FCP-4 specifies the reason code shall be 03h "Logical error". Note this
reason code has been specified since FCP-2.
Please respond indicating the reason code you return and/or expect if the
Originator S_ID,=20 OX_ID, or RX_ID fields are inconsistent, along with any
associated specific reasoning.
And please respond by end of business March 30th so I can address this issue
at the April T11 meeting week.
Thanks...Dave
(no = disclaimer)
*
* 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
_______________________________________________
T11_3 mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/t11_3
*
* 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