REC, S_ID in payload

Bob Snively Bob.Snively at EBay.Sun.COM
Tue Oct 19 15:12:13 PDT 1999


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Bob Snively <Bob.Snively at EBay.Sun.COM>
*
Dale,

Agreed.

Matt,

I am not sure that would work correctly, since the payload S_ID is the 
S_ID of the exchange being tested, not necessarily the S_ID of the 
exchange carrying the REC.  As a result, it might be remotely possible
that the same OX_ID/RX_ID values were assigned in both directions, so the
REC's S_ID and initiative context would not be sufficient to distinguish
which exchange was being examined by the REC.

Bob



>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:05:10 -0600
>From: Dale LaFollette <dale_lafollette at stortek.com>
>Subject: REC, S_ID in payload
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>It has been brought to my attention that reserving the S_ID field
>in the REC payload because it is redundant to the S_ID of the
>frame header is not always correct.
>
>It is my understanding that the S_ID field in the payload is the
>ID of the "Exchange originator". Thus if the Target sends a REC
>while waiting for a confirm, the frame header S_ID and the payload
>S_ID would be different.
>
>I would suggest that the field remain as currently defined.



>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:41:20 -0700
>From: Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley at hp.com>
>Subject: Re: REC, S_ID in payload
>
>The ID of the exchange originator can still be obtained from the S_ID field and 
the exchange context bit of the F_CTL fields of the frame header.
>
>The only time I can see where the S_ID in the payload would be handy is if a 
third party port was used to send the REC.  Is this what is desired?

*
* 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