Message-ID: <AEC4671C8179D61194DE0002B328BDD26A81BC@ATLOPS>
From: Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>
To: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com
Cc: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@windows.microsoft.com>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: [iSCSI] CmdSN for Text Command
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:44:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

Sorry, I forgot that you said "I bit is NOT set". If the initiator doesn't
set the I bit, then it would seem that CmdSN should increase.

Eddy 

-----Original Message-----
From: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com [mailto:wrstuden@wasabisystems.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:37 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Cc: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: [iSCSI] CmdSN for Text Command

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
>