Usage for LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SA CREATION IN PROGRESS sense bytes
Ralph.Weber at wdc.com
Fri Mar 28 13:57:30 PDT 2014
Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1403281_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
I am having a hard time imaging a case where the application client needs a
special ASC/ASCQ to tell it what security protocol (e.g., IKEv2-SCSI or TCG)
The chances of sharing code between these two incredibly tiny (to say the
least). So, one codepoint should suffice for all.
All the best,
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [owner-t10 at t10.org] on behalf of Gerry Houlder
[gerry.houlder at seagate.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:55 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: Usage for LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SA CREATION IN PROGRESS sense
I have noticed that LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SA CREATION IN PROGRESS sense
code is described is SPC-4 as specifically tied to IKEv2-SCSI protocol
My company sees a need to use a similar ASC/ ASCQ for TCG security sessions.
The question is -- is it OK to use exactly the same sense bytes for a TCG
session (or other security protocol session) or do i need to define a new
ASC/ ASCQ that will read something like "LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SECURITY
Please respond with opinions to the T10 reflector. If sentiment is against
using this code for security session other than IKEv2-SCSI, then i will bring
a proposal to the May T10 meeting to create the new sense code.
More information about the T10