Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sensitivity: 
To: Black_David@emc.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control
Message-ID: <OF9DEC439D.E81DCC8E-ON87256D71.0060175A@us.ibm.com>
From: Mike Ko <mako@almaden.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:31:32 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

David, on your suggestion on "specifying a non-negotiable limit on the 
number that can be outstanding", is that with the WG chair hat on?

Mike Ko
IBM Almaden Research
San Jose, CA 95120

Sent by:        owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
To:     elliott@hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc: 
Subject:        RE: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control



Rob,

> Note that SCSI asynchronous events were declared obsolete by
> T10 in November 2002 and have not been documented in SCSI
> Architecture Model - 3 (SAM-3) since revision 3 (the latest
> revision is 8).

iSCSI is based on SAM-2, which includes SCSI asynchronous events,
and moving it to SAM-3 is going to involve other changes (e.g.,
to task management).  That's not planned to happen any time soon,
but the fact that T10 considers SCSI asynchronous events obsolete
is more than adequate justification for specifying a non-negotiable
limit on the number that can be outstanding.

Also, let me caution everyone that the iSER and DA drafts are not
approved work items of the IP Storage WG.  Since they're related to
iSCSI, I suppose discussion on this list is ok, but I have no idea
if or when they may become drafts that this WG works on.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------