Kevin D Butt kdbutt at us.ibm.com
Wed Sep 22 15:21:51 PDT 2010

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r100922a_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The note is there, not to give targets an out, but rather to inform 
initiators that targets implemented to a previous version of the standard 
might behave differently.  I don't know the history here and I like to 
remove all notes that are not needed, but the consequence of doing so is 
that new developers of FCP-4 compliant initiators may not be tolerant of 
old targets.  How old are we talking about?  Is this back to FCP or 
earlier?  That is, will FCP-2 compliant targets pass the current FCP-4 
requirements here?  If so, then I say remove the note.	However, if FCP-2 
compliant devices might do this, then I think we need the note.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
From:	Gerry Houlder <gerry.houlder at seagate.com>
To:	T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org>
Date:	09/22/2010 03:12 PM
Subject:	FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
Sent by:	owner-t10 at t10.org
If you remove this note from FCP-4, it just means that products that don't 
do this will not conform to FCP-4. Since none of the older products claim 
compliance to FCP-4 (how could they, it didn't exist when they were 
introduced) and can still claim compliance to FCP-3 or an older standard, 
what harm is there?

More information about the T10 mailing list