Bob.Nixon at emulex.com Bob.Nixon at emulex.com
Thu Sep 23 16:19:04 PDT 2010

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1009236_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

To be clear, the behavior described in this note (how did it become note 7?
It's note 4 in the most recent FCP-4 on the T10 site) is not compliant with
any version of FCP. The note appears back to FCP-2.  FCP lacks the note but
clearly requires these fields to be present even when the validity bits are
set to zero.
I understand, and sometimes sympathize with, the hesitation to include
non-normative explanatory information in a standard, but I agree with those
who want to retain this note ...  it has been, and apparently still is,
-	   bob
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of
Bill.Martin at emulex.com
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:16 PM
To: gerry.houlder at seagate.com; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
This note is not about compliance, but about what a compliant initiator may
see from older compliant targets.  This note is very helpful in ensuring that
new initiators will still work with targets that are compliant to  older
versions of this specification.
I would recommend that the note remain.
Bill Martin
Office of Technology
Industry Standards
916 765-6875
bill.martin at emulex.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:25 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
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