Subject: Unsolicited Data.

From: "BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:58:24 +0100

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but it is causing some
confusion.  The statement below implies that if immediate data has been
negotiated then the initiator MAY use it.

"If ImmediateData is set to no and InitialR2T is set to no then the
initiator MUST NOT send unsolicited immediate data but MAY send one
unsolicited burst of Data-OUT PDUs."

Therefore the target must wait for the initial burst of unsolicited data
before issuing the first R2T (if there is subsequent data).  If the
initiator decides not to send it then the target must timeout and issue the
R2T for the initial data.  Can the spec be changed to state that if
unsolicited data has been negotiated, then the initiator MUST use it.

Thanks

Matthew Burbridge
NIS-Bristol
Hewlett Packard
Telnet: 312 7010
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "Ayman Ghanem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:31:06 -0500

If the initiator decides not to send immediate or unsolicited data when it
has negotiated to do so, then the initiator must set the F-bit in the
command PDU. This prompts the target to send R2T.

I still agree that the spec should indicate that the initiator MUST use the
resources it has negotiated. If it has negotiated the option to send
immediate data or unsolicited data then it should do that to the limits
allowed. If it has negotiated a PDU length, it must not send data PDUs less
than the negotiated limit except for last one. While most implementation may
do that for performance reasons, I would prefer defining this in the spec.

-Ayman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> BURBRIDGE,MATTHEW (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex2)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Unsolicited Data.
>
>