SCSI Working Group Minutes July 19-20, 1994

John Lohmeyer jlohmeye at ncr-mpd.FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
Wed Jul 27 09:26:17 PDT 1994


Accredited Standards Committee
X3, Information Processing Systems
                                         Doc. No.: X3T10/94-149r0
                                             Date: July 20, 1994
                                          Project: 
                                        Ref. Doc.: 
                                         Reply to: J. Lohmeyer

To:         Membership of X3T10

From:       Weber/Lohmeyer

Subject:    Minutes of X3T10 SCSI Working Group  July 19-20, 1994

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Agenda
1.    Opening Remarks

2.    Attendance and Membership

3.    Approval of Agenda

4.    Physical Topics
   4.1   Fast-20 Progress Report (94-116,-131,-061r5)
         [Ham/Lamers/Lohmeyer]
      4.1.1     Fast-20 Node Capacitance (reflector messages) [McGrath]
      4.1.2     Fast-20 Slew Rate -- 540 ns vs. 520 ns [Frazier]
   4.2   SCAM Annex Proposal (94-133) [Gardner/Lamers/Lohmeyer]
   4.3   SCSI-3 SPI Issues (94-038r2) [Aloisi]
   4.4   Higher Density Connector [Lohmeyer]
   4.5   Transfer Period tolerance in SIP/SPI (94-142r0) [Galloway]
   4.6   New SDTR Message (reflector messages) [Asami]

5.    Protocol Topics

   5.1   SAM Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 994D) [Monia]
   5.2   SBP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 992D)
         [Lamers/Roberts]
   5.3   FCP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 993D) [Snively]
   5.4   Letter Ballot Comment Resolution on GPP Project Proposal for TR
         (94-124) []
   5.5   Message Handling Chart for SIP (94-032) [Houlder]
   5.6   AER vs Unit Attention [Scheible]

6.    Command Set Topics
   6.1   Various SPC Topics [Weber] {Tuesday pm}
   6.2   Reserve & Release in SCSI-3 Primary Commands (94-106) [Weber]
         {Tuesday pm}
   6.3   SCSI-3 Download Microcode (94-80r1, 94-104r0) [McGrath, Cummings]
   6.4   SCSI-3 INQUIRY Command (94-079r1) [McGrath]
   6.5   Data Recovery on Deferred Errors (94-067) [Houlder]
   6.6   RAID 5 Support on SCSI Disk Drives (94-111) [Houlder]
      6.6.1     ACA handling for Temporary Initiators (reflector messages)
                [Houlder]
   6.7   Enhanced READ BUFFER command (94-128) [Lappin]
   6.8   READ POSITION command for SSC (94-137) [Lappin]
   6.9   Proposal for Control Mechanism for Reserved Handling (94-130)
         [Lohmeyer]
   6.10  Scanner Window Descriptor Bytes Proposal (94-110)
         [Motoyama/Weber]
   6.11  Format Proposal for Stream Devices (94-146) [Cummings]
   6.12  Request for New Density Codes for Sequential Access Medium (94-
         147) [Cummings]
   6.13  Request for a New ASC/ASCQ Code (94-147) [Cummings]

7.    Meeting Schedule

8.    Adjournment

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Results of Meeting

1.    Opening Remarks

Lawrence Lamers, the Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.,
July 19, 1994.  He thanked Ralph Weber and Charles Monia of Digital for
hosting the meeting.

As is customary, the people attending introduced themselves.  A copy of the
attendance list was circulated for attendance and corrections.

It was stated that the meeting had been authorized by X3T10 and would be
conducted under the X3 rules.  Ad hoc meetings take no final actions, but
prepare recommendations for approval by the X3T10 task group.  The voting
rules for the meeting are those of the parent committee, X3T10.  These rules
are:  one vote per company; and any participating company member may vote.

The minutes of this meeting will be posted to the SCSI BBS and the SCSI
Reflector and will be included in the next committee mailing.

2.    Attendance and Membership

Attendance at working group meetings does not count toward minimum attendance
requirements for X3T10 membership.  Working group meetings are open to any
person or company to attend and to express their opinion on the subjects
being discussed.

The following people attended the meeting:

         Name          S        Organization         Electronic Mail Address
---------------------- -- ------------------------- -------------------------
Mr. Lawrence J. Lamers A# Adaptec, Inc.             ljlamers at aol.com
Mr. Neil T. Wanamaker  P  Amdahl Corp.              ntw20 at eng.amdahl.com
Mr. Bob Whiteman       A  AMP, Inc.                 whiteman at cup.portal.com
Mr. Jeff Rosa          P  Amphenol Interconnect
Mr. Jerry Fredin       V  AT&T Global Info.         Jerry.Fredin at WichitaKS.NC
                          Solutions                 R.COM
Mr. John Lohmeyer      P  AT&T/ NCR                 john.lohmeyer at ftcollinsco
                          Microelectronics          .ncr.com
Mr. Sean Harrihan      V  Berg Electronics
Mr. Joe Stoupa         O  Burr-Brown Corp.          Stoupa_Joe at bbrown.com
Mr. Steven Ramberg     A  BusLogic                  stever at buslogic.com
Mr. Ian Morrell        A  Circuit Assembly Corp.    crctassmbl at aol.com
Mr. Joe Chen           P  Cirrus Logic Inc.         chen at cirrus.com
Mr. Bill Galloway      P  Compaq Computer Corp.     billg at bangate.compaq.com
Mr. Peter Johansson    P  Congruent Software, Inc.  pjohansson at aol.com
Mr. Timothy Feldman    A  Conner Peripherals        Tim.Feldman at conner.com
Mr. Louis Grantham     P  Dallas Semiconductor      grantham at dalsemi.com
Mr. Charles Monia      P  Digital Equipment Corp.   monia at starch.enet.dec.com
Dr. William Ham        A# Digital Equipment Corp.   ham at subsys.enet.dec.com
Mr. William Dallas     A# Digital Equipment Corp.   dallas at wasted.enet.dec.com
Mr. Ralph Weber        A# Digital Equipment Corp.   weber at star.enet.dec.com
Mr. Edward A. Gardner  A  Digital Equipment Corp.   gardner at ssag.enet.dec.com
Mr. Mark Hamel         V  EMC Corp.                 hamel at emc.com
Mr. Kenneth J. Hallam  A  ENDL                      khallam at endlas.com
Mr. Edward Lappin      P  Exabyte Corp.             tedl at exabyte.com
Mr. Gary R. Stephens   P  FSI Consulting Services   6363897 at mcimail.com
Mr. Robert Liu         P  Fujitsu Computer          74503.1610 at compuserve.com
                          Products,Am
Mr. Steve Caron        O  Furukawa Electric
Mr. Jeffrey L.         P  Hewlett Packard Co.       jlw at hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Williams
Ms. Nancy Cheng        O  Hitachi Computer Products n_cheng at hitachi.com
Mr. David McFadden     P  Honda Connectors
Mr. George Penokie     P  IBM Corp.                 gop at rchvmp3.vnet.ibm.com
Mr. Giles Frazier      O  IBM Corp.                 gfrazier at ausvm6.vnet.ibm.
                                                    com
Mr. Ken Cummings       O  IBM Corp.                 kcummings at vnet.ibm.com
Dr. Gerald Marazas     A# IBM PC Company            marazas at bcrvmpc2.vnet.ibm
                                                    .com
Mr. Geoffrey Barton    P  Iomega Corp.              glbarton at iomega.com
Mr. Dean Wallace       P  Linfinity Micro
Mr. Mario Montana      V  LSI Logic
Mr. Robert Bellino     P  Madison Cable Corp.
Mr. Bob Masterson      P  Methode Electronics, Inc.
Mr. Skip Jones         P  QLogic Corp.              sk_jones at qlc.com
Mr. James McGrath      P  Quantum Corp.             JMCGRATH at QNTM.COM
Mr. Gerald Houlder     A  Seagate Technology        Gerry_Houlder at notes.seaga
                                                    te.com
Mr. Stephen G. Finch   P  Silicon Systems, Inc.     5723283 at mcimail.com
Mr. David Deming       O  Solution Technology
Mr. Erich Oetting      P  Storage Technology Corp.  Erich_Oetting at Stortek.com
Mr. Robert N. Snively  P  Sun Microsystems, Inc.    Bob.Snively at sun.com
Mr. Akram Atallah      O  SyQuest Technology Corp.
Mr. Paul D. Aloisi     P  Unitrode Integrated       Aloisi at uicc.com
                          Circuits
Mr. Francis Terry      V  Unitrode Integrated       Aloisi at uicc.com
                          Circuits
Mr. Tak Asami          A  Western Digital           asami at dt.wdc.com
                          Corporation
Mr. Duncan Penman      P  Zadian Technologies       penman at netcom.com

50 People Present

Status Key:  P    -  Principal
             A,A# -  Alternate
             O    -  Observer
             L    -  Liaison
             V    -  Visitor


3.    Approval of Agenda

The proposed agenda was approved.

4.    Physical Topics

4.1   Fast-20 Progress Report (94-116,-131,-061r5) [Ham/Lamers/Lohmeyer]

Bill Ham presented a short report on progress of the Fast-20 (20 mega-
transfers per second) parallel SCSI bus.  Bill noted that there are two open
issues: 1) 3 meter length and 2) device capacitance loading rules.  Bill
showed some signal trace data that, in his mind, settles that 4 evenly-spaced
devices will work with a bus length of 3 meters.

Bill followed the progress report with a brief proposal for two more parallel
projects.  Bill would like to build a Fast-40 parallel definition.  Bill's
second proposal was for a differential version that can be integrated into
a single protocol chip.

4.1.1    Fast-20 Node Capacitance (reflector messages) [McGrath]

John noted that two different messages were heard (by two groups) at the May
working group meeting.  Some folks heard 20 pF and others heard 25 pF (the
current SPI value).  A major concern was mixing SCSI-2 and Fast-20 devices
on a single bus.  Also mentioned were the increased device costs associated
with lowering the capacitance requirement to 20 pF.

After a lengthy discussion, John held a straw poll with the results of 13:13
for 20 pF vs 25 pF.  Then, the debate continued.  Larry suggested that the
issue be tabled until better data is available in September.

4.1.2    Fast-20 Slew Rate -- 540 ns vs. 520 ns [Frazier]

To make the Fast-20 slew rate consistent with existing SPI, the Fast-20 slew
rate needs to be changed from 540 mv/ns to 520 mv/ns.  This change had been
accepted a the Harrisburg meeting, but was omitted in the latest draft
proposal.  Larry agreed to make the change provided it was noted in the
minutes.

4.2   SCAM Annex Proposal (94-133) [Gardner/Lamers/Lohmeyer]

John Lohmeyer proposed that 94-133 be voted on by the Plenary.  If the vote
passes, John said that the document will be given to the SPI editor for
inclusion in SPI.  John described the issues addressed by 94-133.  Several
of the corrections in 94-133 are just clarifications.

Jim McGrath asked what changes in 94-133 affect slaves.  John and Larry felt
that the unassigned (no ID) state may affect Jim's slave devices.  Jim
complained that such changes were unfair to his implementation.  John noted
that he is pleased that Quantum is an early adopter of SCAM, however there
are no guarantees that proposals for proposed projects will not evolve as
experience is gained.  This particular change is rather small and should not
affect compatibility except in unusual circumstances.

The topic was referred to the plenary meeting.

4.3   SCSI-3 SPI Issues (94-038r2) [Aloisi]

Paul Aloisi presented a revised proposal for changes in SPI Annex A.  The
changes concern hot swapping, how it affects TERMPWR glitches, and TERMPWR
bypassing.  There was little discussion of Paul's proposal.

Paul presented a Voh proposal for a note regarding a Voh maximum of 5.25V in
SPI clause 7.1.2.  This proposal generated more discussion.  The location
where the voltage is measured was an issue.  Bill Ham claimed that no
existing chips should be affected.  Bill also noted that the proposal affects
only active negation cases.

Further discussion revealed that the proposal can be interpreted to have a
pervasive effect on the SPI.  Bill and Paul presented additional data
suggesting other alternatives.  Eventually, everybody agreed that the
proposal could not pass because most active-negation silicon drives signals
higher that the proposed maximum Voh of 3.24 volts in the proposal.

Next, Paul presented a proposal that terminators shall not source current
above 3.24V.  The working group realized that many laptops would violate the
proposed new requirement.  So, the group tried to generate wording that would
be a consensus builder between laptop applications and the proposal. 
Consensus wording was not easy to find.  So, limiting the proposal to Fast-20
seemed like the practical solution.

A revised proposal was addressed at the plenary meeting the next day.

4.4   Higher Density Connector [Lohmeyer]

Robert Whiteman presented an overview of a very high density connector that
would be useful for multiple connector SCSI applications (such as RAID
controller ISA/PCI cards) or laptops.  Bob asked how the working group wants
to proceed; refer to small form factor, or introduce the new connector into
the standard.

John agreed to work with Bob to draft a list of requirements for the higher
density connector.  If the requirements list suggest further work, John will
draft a project proposal.

4.5   Transfer Period tolerance in SIP/SPI (94-142r0) [Galloway]

Bill described a horror story where the lack of tolerances in synchronous
transfer negotiations caused a drive to be inoperable in one of his system
configurations.  Then, he presented four specific changes that can be made
to SPI to add tolerances on synchronous transfers.

Discussion in favor of the proposal noted the variations in oscillator
crystals and possible (shown to be actual) implementations.  Discussion
opposed to the change was based on the 100% under-selected tolerance built
in to the existing standard.  After most all opinions had been expressed,
Larry conducted a straw-poll for a plenary recommendation.  The poll favored
the proposal 17:3.

4.6   New SDTR Message (reflector messages) [Asami]

Tak reviewed the past few week's reflector discussion of transfer period in
the Fast-20 environment.  Because of the *4 multiplier on transfer period in
the Synchronous Data Transfer Request (SDTR) message, transfer rates of 19.2
Mbyte/sec or 20.83 Mbyte/sec can be expressed.  However, 20 Mbyte/sec cannot
be exactly expressed.

Tak proposed defining a new synchronous transfer negotiation message.  He was
met with a resounding chorus of "not in my drive!"  Nearly all the group felt
that the current definition, with its 4% transfer rate inaccuracies, was
adequate.  The recent approval of tolerances for transfer parameters further
justified no message changes, for many group members.

The group strongly favored allowing a Transfer Period of 48 ns, but not
defining a new synchronous transfer negotiation message.

5.    Protocol Topics

5.1   SAM Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 994D) [Monia]

Charles reviewed SAM revision 14 and document 94-129r1, which summarizes the
letter ballot comments and responses.  Some changes were identified.  Some
of those present noted that the SAM revision 14 document has not been
available long enough for a reasonable review.

5.2   SBP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 992D) [Lamers/Roberts]

SBP letter ballot comments received by the May 1994 deadline are recorded in
a proposed disposition document dated June 9, 1994.  The changes resulting
to the SBP document (X3T10 document 992D) are reflected in Revision 17 also
dated June 9, 1994.  Both documents above were included in the X3T10 June
mailing.  A limited number of each document were made available at both the
July 20, 1994 Working Group meeting and the July 21, 1994 Plenary session. 
Submitters of the original comments have indicated satisfaction with the
disposition appearing in Revision 17.

Subsequently, on July 15, a new proposal involving limited technical changes
to SBP has been submitted by Apple Computer.  This proposal (which is
summarized below) represents a significant simplification in that there is
now assurance that within SBP, no isochronous application data unit is split
across two consecutive IEEE P1394 isochronous data block packets.  Also,
additional editorial comments to Revision 17 have been submitted by IBM.  The
combination of technical changes submitted by Apple and editorial changes
submitted by IBM now requires publication of a new revision of SBP, Revision
18.  This new version of SBP will be requested for inclusion in the August
mailing and for discussion / consideration at the September meeting.

The technical proposal from Apple is a continuation of their isochronous
topic comments submitted originally in May.  The new proposal was developed
with significant collaboration involving active members of the Digital VCR
committee.  Additionally, the proposal has been reviewed by certain major 
companies in the consumer electronics market.

Key elements of the Apple proposal are as follows:
   (a) The IEEE 1394 isochronous data block packet is characterized as
   carrying an integer number of isochronous data payload packets.  These
   isochronous data payload packets are specified by some isochronous
   application, such as a digital VCR using isochronous data.  The key idea
   resulting in a significant simplification is that SBP now requires there
   to be an integer number of these payload packets within an isochronous
   data block packet.
   (b) There is introduced in the isochronous login CDS a new parameter, L,
   which is the number of bytes within an isochronous data payload packet.
   (c) The isochronous data rate parameter R is now expressed in units of
   isochronous data payload packets per second rather than its former
   characterization of bytes per second.  The formula for rate R continues
   to be the same, namely R = (I + N/D).
   (d) Since an isochronous data payload packet no longer spans two
   consecutive isochronous data block packets, there is no longer a need for
   the byte offset field in bytes 50 and 51 of the Stream Control CDS. 
   Consequently, the byte offset parameter is removed and the associated
   field becomes reserved.

As stated, the plan for SBP is to incorporate the new comments from Apple and
|from IBM into Revision 18 which is to be distributed in the August X3T10
mailing.  A copy of the Apple technical proposal also will be included within
the August mailing so as to provide a clear indication of areas of SBP having
been changed technically.  A meeting  vote will be requested at the September
Plenary session for the purpose of accepting Revision 18 as a satisfactory
resolution of all comments submitted relative to SBP as a part of its letter
ballot in May.  Authorization will be requested for forwarding Revision 18
to X3 for review and vote.

5.3   FCP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 993D) [Snively]

Bob Snively lead a discussion of letter ballot comments resolutions for FCP. 
Bob noted that he wants a forwarding vote at the Plenary.  The comments and
resolutions were distributed in the June mailing in document 94-109r1.  Bob
also reviewed the comments and discussion that have occurred since 94-109r1
was prepared.

Bob and Gary Stephens argued the mandatory/optional nature of ACA support in
FCP to a stalemate.  It appeared that the issue would go forward to X3 as an
unresolved negative.

Two other disputed comments were resolved quickly when Bob agreed to add
negotiating overlaid data to the PRLI operation.  Then, a fourth contentious
issue was raised and debated.  The problem concerned a conflict between the
CDB length and DL value.

Bob noted that PRLI/PRLO is not defined in any standard.  So, Bob has
incorporated PRLI/PRLO in FCP as normative annex A.  Bob noted several
editorial changes, such as uppercase and lowercase usage changes.

At the end of the discussion, Bob stated that all but one of the outstanding
negatives have been resolved.  That negative on mandatory vs. optional ACA
support is not resolvable.

5.4   Letter Ballot Comment Resolution on GPP Project Proposal for TR (94-
      124) []

John announced the results of the letter ballot on approving the Revised GPP
Project Proposal to make the project a Technical Report: 45:3:0:12 = 60  The
negatives were from ENDL, Exabyte, and FSI.  Please see the X3T10 minutes
(94-150) for details.

After a brief discussion, John suggested that the Plenary should take a vote
to forward the revised project proposal with negative comments.  John said
that he sees no opportunity for resolving the negative comments.

5.5   Message Handling Chart for SIP (94-032) [Houlder]

Gerry proposed adding an informative annex to the SIP describing the response
to every known message combination.  Gerry sought a working group
recommendation that the proposal be accepted for inclusion in the SIP.  The
working group sent the proposal to the plenary without a recommendation.

5.6   AER vs Unit Attention [Scheible]

John Scheible raised the question, "Do we need an auto contingent allegiance
like condition to lock devices during asynchronous event reporting of unit
attention conditions?"  A tortured discussion followed, as various members
of the group tried to understand the needs and whether the existing SCSI
standards cover the needs.

The group eventually decided to use AER if the device does not need to be
locked and use CHECK CONDITION/ACA if the device needs to be locked.  Also,
a combination of the two can be used for quick notification, followed by
device locking.

6.    Command Set Topics

6.1   Various SPC Topics [Weber] {Tuesday pm}

Ralph led a discussion of every editorial footnote in SPC revision 1.  He
received guidance that can be applied to writing revision 2.  He was able to
close all but 3 of the 27 footnote issues.  Ralph agreed to prepare revision
2 for the August mailing.

In response to a discussion of when REQUEST SENSE data should be available,
the group agreed that such information belongs in the SAM.  Ralph will remove
the SPC text that defines REQUEST SENSE data availability and clearing. 
Charles will put equivalent wording in the SAM, or revise the existing
wording to include ideas found in the SPC revision 1.

The group noted that SPC revision 1 contains new text describing REQUEST
SENSE data availability in the presence of power management features (from
approved document 91-014r6).  Charles agreed to include this information in
the SAM.

6.2   Reserve & Release in SCSI-3 Primary Commands (94-106) [Weber] {Tuesday
      pm}

Ralph Weber reviewed the proposal for combining RESERVE with RESERVE UNIT and
RELEASE with RELEASE UNIT, SAMinizing the RESERVE/RELEASE definitions, and
adding 8-byte device IDs.  He received specific guidance for drafting
revision 2 of the document.  A major issue was the interactions between
reservations and individual commands.  Ralph was instructed to write
guidelines for defining command interactions and to propose specific
reservation interactions text for each command in the SPC.

6.3   SCSI-3 Download Microcode (94-80r1, 94-104r0) [McGrath, Cummings]

Ken described changes to WRITE BUFFER to enhance (modernize) the download
microcode capabilities.  Ken received lots of advice on how to handle
notifying the host that the device is or is not ready to received a microcode
download.  Ken plans to revise the document overnight and to seek a plenary
approval vote for inclusion in SPC.

6.4   SCSI-3 INQUIRY Command (94-079r1) [McGrath]

At Jim's request, this proposal was deferred to the September meetings.

6.5   Data Recovery on Deferred Errors (94-067) [Houlder]

Gerry presented revision 1 of his proposal that extends the REQUEST SENSE
data to add number of blocks and starting block when a deferred error occurs
on a cached write.  Gerry was asked to use READ BUFFER instead of READ to
recover the data in the cache.  The concern behind this seemed to be that
Gerry's idea is implementation specific.  Gerry agreed to work on the
proposal to make it more acceptable.

6.6   RAID 5 Support on SCSI Disk Drives (94-111) [Houlder]

Gerry Holder presented document 94-111r2, RAID 5 Support on SCSI Disk Drives. 
The document defines a series of commands for drive assisted RAID 5 XOR
functions.  Concerns were raised about the lack of acceptance of the proposal
by the RAID Advisory Board.

Larry proposed formation of a study group to prepare a detailed proposal and
justification.  The results of the study group would be returned to the
working group and plenary for final action.  (On Thursday, X3T10 authorized
the study group meeting for Monday September 12th from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon.)


6.6.1    ACA handling for Temporary Initiators (reflector messages) [Houlder]

The secretary and vice-chair detected no discussion of this topic.  The topic
had been raised by Gerry Houlder because of the difficulty in temporary
initiators doing error recovery on the proposed XOR commands.  This topic
will also be addressed by the XOR Commands study group.

6.7   Enhanced READ BUFFER command (94-128) [Lappin]

Ed presented a proposal to allow identification of buffers that can be
downloaded using the READ BUFFER command.  Much to Larry's surprise, the READ
BUFFER command is an SPC command that applies to all device types.  Ed wanted
to add to the methods for determining what options are available.  He saw it
as part of the expanded INQUIRY work proposed by Jim McGrath (see 94-079).

6.8   READ POSITION command for SSC (94-137) [Lappin]

Ed proposed some extension to the sequential-device READ POSITION command. 
Ed noted how the enhancements are quickly becoming necessary for tapes.

Larry took a straw poll and determined that the working group recommends
incorporation this proposal in the SSC.

6.9   Proposal for Control Mechanism for Reserved Handling (94-130)
      [Lohmeyer]

John proposed that a bit be added to the Control mode page to define the
device server's processing of reserved bit (the DRC bit).  DRC=1 allows the
device server to ignore reserved fields.  DRC=1 represented the mode of
operation favored by a recent Plenary meeting, which voted by a narrow margin
to allow targets to not check reserved bits for zero.  John showed a table
for the modified Control mode page.

There was a lengthy discussion based on the SCSI-2 LUN bits that are now
reserved.  Giles Frazier wants the LUN=0 checking disabled in all cases.

The group recommended sending the proposal to the plenary with a
recommendation that it be accepted.

6.10  Scanner Window Descriptor Bytes Proposal (94-110) [Motoyama/Weber]

Ralph Weber described the need to approve this request for ASC/ASCQ values
that was almost approved a year ago.

6.11  Format Proposal for Stream Devices (94-146) [Cummings]

Ken presented a proposal for medium formatting in sequential devices.  Ken
noted that his request is based on a known need in the IBM product set.  Bob
Snively questioned the Immediate bit in the CDB.  Whether a single partition
could be formatted also was discussed.  Ken agreed to revise the document
based on the comments received at the meeting.

6.12  Request for New Density Codes for Sequential Access Medium (94-147)
      [Cummings]

Ken requested density codes for the IBM 3490E and for future IBM products. 
John noted that the reference must be removed when the SSC goes to ANSI. 
John proposed that the request be forwarded to the plenary.  There were no
objections.

6.13  Request for a New ASC/ASCQ Code (94-147) [Cummings]

Ken requested five ASC/ASCQ codes for medium magazine error conditions. 
Ralph Weber recommended specific ASC/ASCQ codes.  John proposed that the
request be forwarded to the plenary.  There were no objections.

7.    Meeting Schedule

The next working group meetings will be the week of September 12-16, 1994 at
the Hotel Sofitel (713-445-9000) in Houston, TX hosted by Compaq.  The room
rates are $95.00 plus tax.  The reservation deadline for these rates is
August 11, 1994.  The group name is ANSI X3T10.  The host contact is Bill
Galloway at TEL: 713-374-6732, FAX: 713-374-0514, (billg at bangate.compaq.com).

8.    Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. on Wednesday July 20, 1994.

-- 
John Lohmeyer                      E-Mail:  John.Lohmeyer at FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
NCR Microelectronics                Voice:  719-573-3362
1635 Aeroplaza Dr.                    Fax:  719-597-8225
Colo Spgs, CO 80916              SCSI BBS:  719-574-0424 300--14400 baud




More information about the T10 mailing list