Summary of SAM Rev. 13 to Rev. 15 Changes (X3T10/94-173R0)

Charles Monia, SHR3-2/W3, 237-6757 06-Sep-1994 1529 monia at starch.enet.dec.com
Tue Sep 6 12:27:40 PDT 1994


Gene Milligan wrote:

>Charles wrote or copied:
>>>Comment: HP 023 (I)  Section 3.1, Page 22, Paragraph 5
 
>>Proposed Resolution:
 
 >>    Comment rejected.
 
> What Section is this? The page number does not come close to that Section and
>the paragraph can not be identified.
 
The citations are from rev 13. I inadvertently omitted citing the corresponding
rev 15 material, which is to be found in section 5.1, page 24, paragraph 5.


>>Comment:  028 (T)  Section 3.5.2, Page 31, Paragraph
?>          Last (5.5.2, pp 32, paragraph last)
 
>>Proposed Response:
 
 >>    Comment rejected.
 
> I don't have trouble with the rejection. But in checking that paragraph I
>notice that "specification" should be replaced with "standard".
 
I will make the suggested correction in the next revision.


>>Comment: HP 030 (T)  Section 3.6, Page 33, Paragraph 5
>>(clause 5.6, page 33)
 
>>     The target is listed as not being able to originate task
>>     management functions.  What is the ruling then on the
>>     FCP target being able to issue an abort exchange?  Is
>>     it legal according to SAM for a target to detect that an
>     error has occurred and abort the task due to the detect-
>>     ed error?
 
>>Proposed Response:
 
>>     A target-initiated "abort exchange" indicates that there
>>     is a problem which cannot be reported with a CHECK
>>     CONDITION status. This kind of error may be charac-
>>     terized as a "Service Delivery or Target Failure".
 
>>Status:
 
>     No change to document.
 
> The proposed response appears orthogonal to the comment.

Add to the proposed response. "Since, the case cited describes 
protocol-specific behavior that is outside the scope of SAM
no change to SAM is required."

Charles Monia





More information about the T10 mailing list