SBP-2, another minor issue

Stephen_Finch at notes.ssi1.com Stephen_Finch at notes.ssi1.com
Tue Mar 3 08:13:31 PST 1998


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Stephen_Finch at notes.ssi1.com
*

It has always been my opinion that the most significant word of both the
login_response and status_FIFO fields of the login ORB were reserved.
The description of the status_FIFO in the management ORB description
makes this clear for this field, but the description of the login_response
is not.  One could interpret the text under figure 11 to mean this (or not)

"The node_ID field shall specify the Serial Bus node for which the
address pointer is valid, as defined by IEEE Std 1394-1995. In many
cases, additional constraints on the location of data structures render
the information in node_ID redundant. In these cases, node_ID is
considered a reserved field or is explicitly redefined for other uses."

In 5.1.4.1, I suggest we change :

"The login_response field shall conform to the format for address pointers
specified by Figure 11. The buffer shall be in the same node as the
initiator and shall be accessible to a Serial Bus block write...."
To:

"The login_response field shall conform to the format for address pointers
specified by Figure 11 and shall address the same node as the initiator;
consequently the node_ID field of this address pointer is reserved. The
buffer shall be accessible to a Serial Bus block write...."
This changes the text to be worded as is the description of the status_FIFO
and makes it clear that the node-id field is reserved.

Can this be done in the comment review process?

steve finch



*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com





More information about the T10 mailing list