Message-ID: <499DC368E25AD411B3F100902740AD651B2170CB@xrose03.rose.hp.com>
From: "ERICKSON,SHAWN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <shawn_erickson@hp.com>
To: 'Caitlin Bestler' <cait@asomi.com>,
	Bob Gilligan <gilligan@intransa.com>
Cc: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: Login Redirect
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:45:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

I think if anything the spec could simply state that an effort should be
made by target implementers to use the minimum number of redirects possible
to get a operation done given what the redirects are being used for.

The above however is just common sense and hence doesn't need to be
explicitly stated in the spec.

I don't think an exact minimum or maximum needs to be or can be documented
in the spec. Some consideration and wording may want to go into the spec
regarding cyclic redirects.

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:cait@asomi.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Bob Gilligan
Cc: Mallikarjun C.; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI: Login Redirect

In order to cover the type of fault-tolerance scenario you cited wouldn't it
make sense to set a minimum that the initiator SHOULD be willing to accept?

That way cluster builders would have a base that they could assume would not
result in iniator failures (only delays).