Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Return-Path: Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h46LF0312407 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 1C67768; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3B273; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id E79DF895E; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7529895C for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id B50CE68; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 99DD173; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B93D68 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id 302828963; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E576895C for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 27F5568; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 0EA3F72; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from master.linux-ide.org (astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net [64.85.224.253]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F1668 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 17:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (andre@localhost) by master.linux-ide.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17459; Tue, 6 May 2003 14:08:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com Cc: Eddy Quicksall , "David Black (Black_David@emc.com)" , ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iSCSI: clearing SCSI objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-31.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) On Mon, 5 May 2003 wrstuden@wasabisystems.com wrote: > On Sun, 4 May 2003, Eddy Quicksall wrote: > > > David, > > > > I'm wondering what other targets are doing about this. Was it thought about > > during the design phase? > > Our (Wasabi's) target isn't going to do this, unless there is a strong > indication that it's needed/required for certification. I see no real > reason to do this as it's not conveying any value. Well some will deploy all aspects of the RFC and everything option considered manditory. > So I'd think that the best thing to do here is push back on SAM for iSCSI, > and ignore the need to assert the UA for I_T nexus loss in the cases where > the initiator will notice it itself. > > Note I'm hedging my words, since I think we still need a UA for nexus loss > if it happens in a way the initiator won't notice. Corner case rings a gong, but hey I dance to da different drum. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group