Return-Path: Received: from newbox.ece.cmu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:32:25 -0400 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40106316D for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id ADE08B8; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C352B8; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id AB03589DC; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953DD89DB for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 333BB75; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id C35DA125; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98465119 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id 81F2789E1; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Delivered-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AF289DB for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 4BE4C93; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 1A84A9C; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mononoke.wasabisystems.com (unknown [151.199.66.145]) by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B499293 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mononoke.wasabisystems.com (Postfix, from userid 1021) id 5715640137; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:30:34 -0700 (PDT) From: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com X-X-Sender: wrstuden@neverwinter.home-net.icnt.net To: Paul Koning Cc: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com, pat_thaler@agilent.com, satran@haifasphere.co.il, julian@cs.haifa.ac.il, Black_David@emc.com, dcuddihy@attotech.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: StatSN and overlapped commands In-Reply-To: <16177.25915.103298.497373@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: References: <16177.25915.103298.497373@gargle.gargle.HOWL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-37.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,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 Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Paul Koning wrote: > Rather than clutter up the spec with more notes that say something is > an error you can ignore, I'd rather keep it simple. > > I believe it's agreed that the case we're talking about is an > initiator bug. > > Do we need to describe all possible bugs, and all allowed responses to > such bugs? I don't think so. The spec should describe correct > behavior, and required consistency checks. > > There's an infinite number of possible wrong behaviors that can be > generated by bugs. I believe this should just be covered by the > standard *unwritten* rule that, if you mess up the protocol, you may > not get the answer you were hoping for. I'm happy with that too. My main concern, which you agree with, is to make sure we don't say that this ITT re-use (w/o status ack) is something the target MUST be happy with. Saying, "You get what you get," is fine. Take care, Bill