Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 18:37:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com
To: Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>
Cc: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@windows.microsoft.com>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: [iSCSI] CmdSN for Text Command
In-Reply-To: <AEC4671C8179D61194DE0002B328BDD26A81AE@ATLOPS>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.53.0305141831160.603@neverwinter.home-net.icnt.net>
References: <AEC4671C8179D61194DE0002B328BDD26A81AE@ATLOPS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Eddy Quicksall wrote:

> I don't think the empty text command is to be treated like a new command. I
> think they are talking about what paragraph 10.10.3 is calling "a sequence
> of text requests and responses".

True. I think it should just be sent as an immediate "command", but if you
really want it to not be an immediate PDU, then it needs a new (in-window)
CmdSN. It definitely though needs to have the same ITT as the original
Text command.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian [mailto:nramas@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:15 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: [iSCSI] CmdSN for Text Command
>
> Section 10.10.4 Target Transfer Tag (Text Request)
> says that if F bit is set to 0 in Text Response, initiator
> must send an empty text command so that the target can
> send the next text response. Should the initiator use
> the original CmdSN when it sends the empty text command
> or should it use the next CmdSN (Assuming Immediate Bit
> is NOT set in any of the Text Command PDUs)?
>
> Thanks!
>  -lakshmi
>