Obsolete untagged tasks proposal

Kevin D Butt kdbutt at us.ibm.com
Thu Aug 7 21:50:37 PDT 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Kevin D Butt <kdbutt at us.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001A0FA907256D7C_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


The typical tape environment uses untagged tasks.  Only in recent
history has anything except untagged tasks been allowed on tape drives.

Kevin D. Butt
Fibre Channel & SCSI Architect, IBM Tape Microcode, 
6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ  85744
Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-5751, Fax: 799-4138, Email:
kdbutt at us.ibm.com 



	"Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <elliott at hp.com> 
Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org 


08/07/2003 12:53 AM 
        
        To:        <t10 at t10.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        Obsolete untagged tasks proposal 





03-271r0 has been posted to  <http://www.t10.org/new.htm>
http://www.t10.org/new.htm for discussion in the September CAP meeting.
This proposes obsoleting untagged tasks in SAM-3 and SPC-3. 

In SAM-2, transport protocols were allowed to not support untagged
tasks.  SRP, SPI-4 information units, and SAS have all gone ahead and
done so.  iSCSI and FCP, on the other hand, put in special provisions to
specify "untagged" via their task attribute fields.  This would obsolete
the perceived need for that. 


--- 
Rob Elliott, HP Server Storage 
elliott at hp.com 





--=_alternative 001A0FA907256D7C_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The typical tape environment uses untagged tasks. &nbsp;Only in recent history has anything except untagged tasks been allowed on tape drives.<br>
<br>
Kevin D. Butt<br>
Fibre Channel &amp; SCSI Architect, IBM Tape Microcode, <br>
6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ &nbsp;85744<br>
Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-5751, Fax: 799-4138, Email: kdbutt at us.ibm.com</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <elliott at hp.com&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/07/2003 12:53 AM</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<t10 at t10.org&gt;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Obsolete untagged tasks proposal</font>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">03-271r0 has been posted to </font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><u>http://www.t10.org/new.htm</u></font><font size=2 face="Arial"> for discussion in the September CAP meeting. &nbsp;This proposes obsoleting untagged tasks in SAM-3 and SPC-3.</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">In SAM-2, transport protocols were allowed to not support untagged tasks. &nbsp;SRP, SPI-4 information units, and SAS have all gone ahead and done so. &nbsp;iSCSI and FCP, on the other hand, put in special provisions to specify "untagged" via their task attribute fields. &nbsp;This would obsolete the perceived need for that.</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial">---</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Rob Elliott, HP Server Storage</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
elliott at hp.com </font>
<p>
<p>
--=_alternative 001A0FA907256D7C_=--




More information about the T10 mailing list