Alan,
A couple of comments:
1. The version field in the message will require a unique 'Sub-ID' from the PWG pool.
In discussion with some folks, I understand we're to use a sub-ID for one purpose only.
2. Should we include some more detailed information about which function in a device
sent the request for a login?
- For device with more than one Unit Directory, the message
should include Unit_Unique_ID.
- We need to require a Unit_Unique_ID to Config ROM for devices with more
than one unit directory that wants to use this mechanism (Msg Rq/Rsp).
3. What are the return codes for a login request?
Timeout for response is a question of whether the other node supports Msg Rq/Rsp
Valid responses are one of OK | REJECTED | WAITING
4. Would seem to be a good thing to indicate which devices support this feature?
- Via feature directory in ROM?
- or via part of SBP-2 login request / reply?
5. Discovery would seem to be another issue. I think the key point we need to identify is
the addressing requirements.
- The registers are at fixed addresses
- The node address can change based on topology, etc.
- The EUI -64 will be the absolute address we can use
- A Unit_Unique_ID will tell us the detailed addressing info on more complex nodes.
- Should we include BUS # Info?
6. Address info must be available. What methods are we specifying for defining this info
- Command set
- Vendor specific manner (i.e. Manual entry)
7. One last thing in terms of the message payload:
- Will the message always be the same length?
- 1212r defines MSG Req/Resp to handle 64 bytes
- If our message is less, should we include a byte count in the header?
Cheers,
Greg LeClair
-----Original Message-----
From: ALAN_BERKEMA at HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com [SMTP:ALAN_BERKEMA at HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 10:19 AM
To: p1394 at pwg.org
Subject: P1394> Login Request Proposal
Please see the attached proposal for the "Login into me" proposal.
Feel free to discuss this on the reflector before the next PWG
meeting.
There is time to modify and/or enhance this before 8/2/99 (2 week
rule).
It would be nice to finalize this in Alasaka.
Thanks,
Alan
<< File: msg_rrp.pdf >>