FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency

Robert Snively rsnively at brocade.com
Fri Mar 16 14:30:57 PDT 2007


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Robert Snively" <rsnively at Brocade.COM>
*
Sam,
FCP-4 makes use of the tools provided by the lower layer
for recovery capabilities and for verification of continuing
forward progress, as well as various clearing functions.
These are actions mapped from the SCSI Architecture to
the FCP-4.  So yes, it should be using the values presented
by FC-LS.  Unfortunately, through a case of parallel
evolution and early implementations, this discrepancy
escaped notice.  Dave's concern is whether correcting the
discrepancy in the standards will cause any implementers
undue grief.  Implementations will tell the story of which
standard should be corrected and what correction should be made,
since it really doesn't matter very much architecturally 
which value is selected.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Pappal,
Sam
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:33 AM
To: Dave Peterson; t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: RE: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pappal, Sam" <Sam.Pappal at gdc4s.com>
*
Maybe I'm missing something here but isn't FCP-4 at a layer above the
FC-LS fibre channel layer and somewhat independent?  If it's a FCP-4
layer detected unknown exchange then the reason code returned
corresponds with the FCP-4 layer (logical error), and if it's a FC-LS
layer detected exchange unknown then the FC-LS layer code is returned
(Unable to perform command request). 
Sam 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:15 AM
To: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at t11.org
Subject: FC-LS/FCP-4: REC ELS reason code inconsistency
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "David Peterson" <dpeterso at brocade.com>
*
FCP-2/3/4 error detection implementers,
FC-LS and FCP-4 are inconsistent regarding the proper reason code to
return if the Originator S_ID,=20 OX_ID, or RX_ID fields are
inconsistent (i.e., the Exchange is unknown).
FC-LS specifies the reason code shall be 09h "Unable to perform command
request". Note this reason code has been specified since FC-FS.
FCP-4 specifies the reason code shall be 03h "Logical error". Note this
reason code has been specified since FCP-2.
Please respond indicating the reason code you return and/or expect if
the Originator S_ID,=20 OX_ID, or RX_ID fields are inconsistent, along
with any associated specific reasoning.
And please respond by end of business March 30th so I can address this
issue at the April T11 meeting week.
Thanks...Dave
(no = disclaimer)
*
* 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