FCP-3 & Process Associators

[Ralph O. Weber]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ralph O. Weber" <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Dave,

Since FCP-3 does not allow the Association header bit to be one
in DF_CTL, should the PRLI ORIGINATOR PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID
and RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR VALID bits be allowed to be
one? Maybe they should be defined as Obsolete shall be zero.

If that is done, then the ORIGINATOR PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field
and RESPONDER PROCESS_ASSOCIATOR field would need to be made
Obsolete too.

Finally, maybe subclause 6.3.2 (Process_Associator requirements)
should be removed too.

I am not wedded to a specific answer on this, but I would write
a Letter Ballot comment on it. It probably is better to deal
with the question now.

All the best,

.Ralph

David Peterson (Eng) wrote:

>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* "David Peterson \(Eng\)" <david_peterson at cnt.com>
>*
>Howdy All,
>
>FCP-3 rev 03e has been uploaded. Keep in mind last technical input for
>FCP-3 is set for March 2005 meeting cycle. If you have any FCP-3 items
>you want addressed please be prepared to discuss them at next weeks
>meeting.
>
>http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/fcp3/fcp3r03e.pdf
>
>Thanks...Dave
>*
>* 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