RE: [iSER] Connection_Handle question

> We first implemented DA, including necessary
> extensions to it.
> We then had to ditch it altogether, due to a
> different iSCSI implementation. 

Sorry if that was a surprise, but it is quite
expected.  Section 6 in DA draft specifically cautions
that DA is neither a wire protocol nor an API
definition.  So realizing the DA interaction patterns
across implementations is inherently
implementation-specific.  

Mallikarjun 



--- Dan Bar Dov <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think you are discussing "implementation" rather
> than "protocol".
> 
> While the datamover architecture concept is nice, I
> don't
> believe is should be a "standard". The wire protocol
> is a standard,
> and that covers both iSCSI and iSER. How and where
> an iSCSI 
> implementation supports iSER has nothing to do with
> it.
> 
> We first implemented DA, including necessary
> extensions to it.
> We then had to ditch it altogether, due to a
> different iSCSI implementation. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mallikarjun C.
> [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:06 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Ips] [iSER] Connection_Handle
> question
> > 
> > Yes, you are correct.
> > 
> > Mallikarjun
> > 
> > 
> > --- Eddy Quicksall
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > > I think I found the answer in the definition of
> > > "Connection Handle". Am I correct that the iSCSI
> and
> > > iSER layers both must understand the handle
> since
> > > both must access the TCP/IP stack. For example
> if it
> > > is sockets, the handle may be the "socket"; or
> if it
> > > is a proprietary scheme the handle may be a
> pointer
> > > to a structure that is understood by both the
> iSER
> > > and iSCSI layers.
> > > 
> > > Eddy
> > >   ----- Original Message ----- 
> > >   From: Eddy Quicksall 
> > >   To: [email protected] 
> > >   Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:21 PM
> > >   Subject: [Ips] [iSER] Connection_Handle
> question
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   Generally when an upper layer is going to use
> a
> > > lower layer, the lower layer gives a handle
> (many
> > > times via an open call).
> > > 
> > >   In the primitives the Connection_Handle is
> passed
> > > as an input qualifier. But I don't see any
> primitive
> > > that returns the Connection_Handle. Am I missing
> > > that?
> > > 
> > >   Eddy
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> _______________________________________________
> > >   Ips mailing list
> > >   [email protected]
> > >   https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > Ips mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ips mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips