Paul Suhler Paul.Suhler at quantum.com
Wed Sep 22 16:35:05 PDT 2010

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r100922d_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Quantum would like to see the note stay.
Postel's Law:  Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you
Paul A. Suhler | Firmware Engineer | Quantum Corporation | Office:
949.856.7748 | paul.suhler at quantum.com 
Preserving the World's Most Important Data. Yours.(tm) 
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Kevin D
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:22 PM
To: Gerry Houlder
Cc: owner-t10 at t10.org; T10 Reflector
Subject: Re: FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
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