[Fwd: FCP-2: Task Retry Identification.]

Dave Peterson dap at cisco.com
Tue Jul 9 14:04:28 PDT 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Dave Peterson" <dap at cisco.com>
*
Howdy Bob and Santosh,

This issue was discussed previously. At that time some vendors indicated
that their method of OX_ID assignment would not cause this condition to
occur.

We can discuss this issue again and see if the tides have changed.

...dap

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]On Behalf Of Nixon,
> Bob
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 6:39 PM
> To: 'Santosh Rao'; T10 Reflector; Dave Peterson; Robert Snively
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: FCP-2: Task Retry Identification.]
>
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Nixon, Bob" <Bob.Nixon at Emulex.Com>
> *
> Emulex concurs with the observation that the absence of mandatory Retry
> Identification leaves open a risk of data corruption for
> implementations of
> FCP-2 sequence recovery.  This should be corrected in FCP-3.
>
>    - Bob Nixon, Emulex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santosh Rao [mailto:santoshr at cup.hp.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: T10 Reflector; Dave Peterson; Robert Snively
> Subject: [Fwd: FCP-2: Task Retry Identification.]
>
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Santosh Rao <santoshr at cup.hp.com>
> *
> Hello,
>
> I am re-sending this message since I have'nt been able to get any
> response on this. Clarifications from FCP-2 editors and implementors
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Santosh
>
>
> Santosh Rao wrote:
> >
> > * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> > * Santosh Rao <santoshr at cup.hp.com>
> > *
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have a question regarding the Task Retry Identification functionality
> > described in Section 4.6.
> >
> > The re-use of OX_IDs within RR_TOV of their last use exposes the
> > initiator to this condition described in Section 4.6.
> >
> > Since it is the initiator's OX_ID generation model which can determine
> > the exposure to this problem, the Task Retry Identification
> > functionality must be a "mandatory to implement, optional to use"
> > feature and it should be left to the initiator's discretion on whether
> > this should be enabled.
> >
> > Can someone clarify why this is not a mandatory feature of FCP-2 ?
> > Without this feature, there is a risk of exposure to data corruption and
> > FCP-2 sequence level error recovery (SLER) cannot be used in a reliable
> > manner.
> >
> > Can the FCP-2 target implementors on this list comment on whether they
> > support Task Retry Identification ? What is the extent of support for
> > this feature among FCP-2 target implementations ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Santosh
> >
> > --
> > The world is so fast that there are days when the person who says
> > it can't be done is interrupted by the person who is doing it.
> >         ~ Anon
> > *
> > * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> > * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>
> --
> The world is so fast that there are days when the person who says
> it can't be done is interrupted by the person who is doing it.
> 	~ Anon
> *
> * 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

*
* 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