LLNL Public Review comments on FCP
Lansing J Sloan
ljsloan at anduin.ocf.llnl.gov
Fri Mar 24 10:49:58 PST 1995
To: SCSI Reflector
Fibre Channel Reflector
From: Lansing Sloan
LLNL's public review comments on FCP follow.
March 21, 1995
Attn.: Lynn Barra
1250 Eye Street N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20005-3922
Membership of X3:
Here are Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's comments
to the public review of X3.269:199x, the SCSI-3 Fibre Channel
Protocol (Revision 10). We consider this to be a "yes" vote with
Comments are organized as follows:
#xxx (?) Comment on y.y.y
xxx is the comment number,
? is the type (E: Editorial, T: Technical), and
y.y.y is the referenced section number.
#001 (E) Comment on 2
We believe FC-PH may be listed as a normative reference now
(and deleted from clause 8).
#002 (E) Comment on 3.1
Many of the definitions include the text "[SAM]". Some have "[FC-
PH]" or "[FC-AL]". Such text seems helpful but should the
meanings should be explained, or the text deleted. Many of the
terms with "[SAM]" are also defined in SAM Revision 016, though
not necessarily in SAM's "definitions" clause 4.1.
#003 (E) Comment on 3.1.3 and 3.1.4
The terms "autosense buffer pointer" and "autosense returned
flag" have "[SAM]" in their definitions in the FCP document but
do not appear to be defined in SAM Revision 016. (Both appear in
SAM 012 clause 9.1 but not in SAM 016 clause 6.3.)
#004 (E) Comment on 3.1.15
Since operation associators are 64 bits long, not 32, the
FQXID with operation associators is a 176-bit concatenation, not
#005 (E) Comment on 3.1.25
The terms "SCSI command service" has "[SAM]" in its
definition in the FCP document but does not appear to be defined
in SAM Revision 016. (It is in SAM 012 clause 9.1 but not in SAM
016 clause 6.3, where it appears to have been replaced by
"Execute Command" or "Send SCSI Command protocol service".)
#006 (T) Comment on 4.2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence
This sentence states that if an unusual condition has been
detected then SCSI REQUEST SENSE and FCP response information are
returned. Is SCSI REQUEST SENSE supposed to be returned even if
Auto-sense is not specified? (If the answer is yes, that should
be made explicit in FCP, since it sort of contradicts SAM.)
Similarly, if FCP response information is supposed to be
returned regardless of auto-sense, that should be stated. (SAM
presumably does not cover this.) Clauses 7.4, 7.4.5, and/or
7.4.6 may be better places to clarify this.
#007 (E) Comment on 4.3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence
The sentence says that task management functions ... are
always ... the only IU in a new Exchange. According to 126.96.36.199,
that's not true for "terminate task", which appears to be done
only in existing Exchanges. Consider appending ", except for
Terminate Task" to the end of the sentence.
#008 (E) Comment on 5.1, 1st paragraph and Table 3
Please state clearly in the paragraph what the FCP_Port
address identifiers are. Please use words that clearly say
"D_ID" and "S_ID" in table 3 are the identifiers. (The closest
words found in a quick scan are in the definitions of "target
identifier" and "initiator identifier".)
#009 (E) Comment on 5.2, Table 6
In the last line of the Note (and before the Key), delete
the comma after "I2". Also delete "are usable to".
#010 (E) Comment on 5.5.6
Delete the "is" that precedes "identifies".
#011 (E) Comment on 5.5.11, 2nd sentence
In "... Base Address is beginning address ...", insert "the"
#012 (E) Comment on 6.1, second paragraph, second sentence
Change "separated processes" to "separate processes"
following the third instance of "logically".
#013 (E) Comment on 6.2.2 through 6.2.4
Each of these has words "for each FC-4" that I think are
inappropriate in FCP. Clause 6.2.4 has three instances of the
phrase. The last paragraph before 6.1.1 certainly says the
parameters for the other FC-4's are outside the scope of FCP
(properly). Probably the five instances of "for each FC-4"
should be replaced by "for FCP".
#014 (E) Comment on 6.2.5, first sentence
Change "effects" to "affects."
#015 (T) Comment on 6.2.5, last paragraph, last sentence
Should "default" precede "PRLI" in: "... PRLI shall be
present at the completion of PLOGI"?
#016 (E) Comment on 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206
In the first paragraph, fourth sentence, of each, a sentence
starts with "If either the originator or the responder do not
...". Change "do" to "does" in each clause.
#017 (E) Comment on 6.3
In the second and third paragraphs, change "No further
communication under the affected FC-4 ..." to "No further FCP
#018 (T) Comment on 6.3, last paragraph
The first sentence talks about "... the referenced process
image ...", and the other two sentences talk about a "PA".
However, the content of this paragraph seems equally appropriate
to communication between entities neither of which requires a PA.
If so, the paragraph should be rewritten so that it does not seem
to apply only when PAs are used. The best correction is unclear,
but replacing "PA" with "image pair" may help.
#019 (E) Comment on 220.127.116.11, first paragraph
Replace the first sentence with something like: "Except for
TERMINATE TASK, a Task management function shall be transmitted
by the initiator (Exchange Originator) using a new Exchange.
There is no response from the target for a Task Management
#020 (E) Comment on 7.4, first sentence
Insert "payload" after "IU" or in place of "IU".
#021 (E) Comment on C.2
In the second line below Table 43, there should be one colon
(not two) following "Generalized Address."
Lansing J. Sloan
Lansing Sloan Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(510) 422-4356 (phone) M/S L-60
(510) 423-8715 (fax) 7000 East Avenue
ljsloan at llnl.gov Livermore, CA 94550-9900 USA
More information about the T10