RE: LUN field in R2T

[Paul Koning <pkoning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Sears" == Sears Bill <Sears_Bill@xxxxxxx> writes:

 Sears> Sounds like whatever the intent of the field was that the spec
 Sears> might be somewhat ambiguous.  I'll err on the side of caution
 Sears> and make sure the LUN field is copied from the R2T into the
 Sears> Data-Outs.  Personally in neither our initiator or target
 Sears> implementations do I even look at that LUN field in the R2T or
 Sears> Data-Out since the ITT and TTT are sufficient for tracking the
 Sears> IO.  However I can conceed that some target implementations
 Sears> may benefit from having the LUN field in the Data-Out.

 >> Further, I'm not sure that 10.7.4 is clear on this point:

 >> "If the Target Transfer Tag is provided, then the LUN field
 >> MUST hold a valid value and be consistent with whatever was
 >> specified with the command;"

 >> One could argue that 'command' is generally used in the
 >> context of a SCSI command, not an R2T.  To reiterate - It's
 >> reasonable to say that an initiator should copy the data, but
 >> I don't think that a target can depend on that behavior.

It sure looks like the spec is contradictory.  So the safe
implementation approach would be:

1. In the initiator, copy LUN from R2T to Data Out, without looking at
   it.

2. In the target, copy LUN from the request to R2T (don't make up your
   own value).

       paul



_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips