P1394 Mail Archive: Re: P1394> CONNECTION_STATE(Was Re: Revised PWG1394 Cmd Set)

P1394 Mail Archive: Re: P1394> CONNECTION_STATE(Was Re: Revised PWG1394 Cmd Set)

Re: P1394> CONNECTION_STATE(Was Re: Revised PWG1394 Cmd Set)

Greg Shue (gregs@sdd.hp.com)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:07:25 -0700 (PDT)

As I thought about your observation, the only case which might
need CONNECTION_STATE is when the connection is opened
unidirecitonally. I suppose unidirectional communication could
be determined from the MAX_I2T_DATA_SIZE and MAX_T2I_DATA_SIZE
parameters. We need one or the other for this case.

If this is the only case, then I'll remove CONNECTION_STATE
and keep both MAX_I2T_DATA_SIZE and MAX_T2I_DATA_SIZE.

Can anyone else think of a case where the message or stream
transport needs to go from bi- to uni-directional before closing?
If so, respond before 8/3/98 or else I'll remove it from the
command set proposal.

- Greg Shue, HP

Akihiro Shimura wrote:

>
> > E) CONNECTION_STATE ( 2 bits unsigned int
>
> I do not think it is necessary for the initiator to control connection
> of each direction separately at transport level.
>
> I suppose the initiator can do it by not issuing either
> TRANSPORT_I2T_DATA or TRANSPORT_T2I_DATA command, while
> uni-directional target may want to declare its capability.
>
> Because we are providing bi-directional transport, I think, whether
> clients use it as uni-directional or bi-directional is up to the
> clients.
>
> Any suggestions?

-- 
Greg Shue
Hewlett-Packard Company
All-in-One Division			        gregs@sdd.hp.com
----------------------------------------------------------------