X3T10 comment resolution for SSA-TL1

scheible at vnet.ibm.com scheible at vnet.ibm.com
Wed Feb 28 20:09:55 PST 1996


* From the SCSI Reflector, posted by:
* scheible at VNET.IBM.COM
*
Sorry for the duplication, copied to the SSA and SCSI reflectors.

Accredited Standards Committee
X3, Information Processing Systems
                                         Doc:  X3T10/96-132r0
                                         Date: February 28, 1996
                                         Project:  X3T10.1 / 0989D
                                         Ref Doc.: SSA-TL1
                                         Reply to: John Scheible
To:      X3T10 Membership
From:    John Scheible
Subject: X3T10 comment resolution for SSA-TL1 rev 9 (96-009)


Adaptec Comments on SSA-TL1 attached to Yes ballot

ADA-1) The second sentence of paragraph four, section 6.2.9:
     When transmission of a UDC character is pending, and an identical
     UDC character is received by another port, the received character
     may be discarded.

     RESPONSE: Replace paragraph 9 of 11.2.3 with the following:
     "The eudc bit (Enable User Defined Characters) specifies how the
     port handles User Defined characters.  If the eudc bit is
     cleared, the port shall not transmit any User Defined characters
     and shall discard received User Defined characters.  If the eudc
     bit is set, the port may transmit User Defined characters, and
     shall forward User Defined characters."


FSI Comments on SSA-TL1 attached to Yes ballot

Gary Stephens faxed the following comment (transcribed by John
Lohmeyer):  "Due to severe personal events, a proper typed and
numbered response was not possible.  I will attempt to do so before
the March meeting.  Copies of marked up pages are included to support
the NO vote for now."
I also received multiple faxes containing much of the SSA-TL1 document
liberally marked up.  I received several duplicate pages and was
missing pages 24-28.  The vast majority of these comments appear to be
editorial in nature.  Since there is no sane way to transcribe all of
these comments, I've forwarded paper copies to the SSA-TL1 editors.
They will incorporate the editorial comments as they see fit.  Since
Gary was unable to provide documentation on what comments are
substantive, I am forced to treat his ballot the same as a "Yes, with
comments" ballot.  No formal response will be generated for his
comments (other than the next revision of SSA-TL1).

     RESPONSE: Editorial comments to be considered.  No substantive
     comments identified.


IBM Comments on SSA-TL1 attached to Yes ballot

IBM-1) Last paragraph of section 10.1.2 (Link Status Byte)
     Change the first sentence to "The RSN field specifies the RECEIVE
     SEQUENCE NUMBER for the next Privileged...".  It should be next
     rather than last.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

IBM-2) Third paragraph, second sentence of 9.1.10 (Port Table)
     Change the second sentence to "When a CONFIGURE PORT SMS is
     received, the Port table entry associated the PORT field
     specified in the CONFIGURE PORT SMS is set as follows.".  It
     should use the PORT field rather than the port the CONFIGURE PORT
     SMS was received on.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.  Also change bullet b) from
     "The port field from the received CONFIGURE PORT SMS is loaded
     into the aa port field."
     to
     "The port number the CONFIGURE PORT SMS was received on is loaded
     into the aa port field."

IBM-3) The MAA PORT field in Table 14 (Master Asynchronous Alert
     table entry)
     Change the Description of MAA PORT to "A one byte value
     indicating the Master's port number used to send the ASYNC REPLY
     SMS.".  It is a one byte value not seven bits, and the term
     associated was vague.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.


Milligan (Seagate) Comments on SSA-TL1 attached to Yes ballot

SEA-1) The patent statement has been useful information for the
     committee participants. However now that the SSA-TL1 is being
     forwarded, the patent statement should be replaced with the
     standard X3 patent statement for the case where patent claims
     have been made and offered in accordance with the ANSI patent
     policy. In particular the specific citing of claims should be
     removed.
     I recognize that X3T11 has left such statements in some of their
     forwarded standards. But this is inappropriate since the
     committee should not take any position on the validity of the
     claims made.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SEA-2) Based upon the definition of SSA-TL2 (which contains a
     grammatical error) in Clause 1.2, SSA-TL2 should be deleted from
     the Clause 2 normative references and moved to an informative
     reference section.

     RESPONSE: Accepted as modified, fix grammar, remove SSA-TL2
     reference from clause 2, add editors note stating that the clause
     2 would be adjusted at time of publication

SEA-3) Based upon the definition of SSA-TL1 in Clause 1.2, SSA-S3P
     and SSA-PH2 should be deleted from the Clause 2 normative
     references and moved to an informative reference section.

     RESPONSE: Accepted as modified, add editors note stating that the
     clause 2 would be adjusted at time of publication, and delete SSA-
     S3P reference.


Symbios Logic Comments on SSA-TL1 attached to Yes ballot
This is a collection of comments for SSA-TL1.  They are considered
editorial by us.

SYM-1)Change 3.1.8  destination node: The node where a frame is
     addressed.
     to 3.1.8  destination node: The node to which a frame is
     addressed.

     RESPONSE: Accepted as modified, "3.1.8  Destination node: The
     node where the frame arrives with a path component of 00h."  This
     avoids the word which and is more definitive.

SYM-2)Section 9.1.3.1, paragraph 1, element a):
     The operational flag is not cleared while in Disabled State.  The
     operational flag is only cleared on failed ERP, or after
     Total/Absolute Reset, or after POST.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.  The Total/Absolute Reset section will clear
     the operational flag, and it will be removed from the Disabled
     state.

SYM-3)Section 9.1.3.1, paragraph 5:
     The link reset received flag being cleared should be added to the
     list in paragraph 1 of this section.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-4)Section 9.1.3.2, paragraph 2:
     (see 9.5) should be (see 9.3).

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-5)Section 9.1.4.3, paragraph 1:
     Sentence 2 should be deleted.  In wrap mode, no data is actually
     communicated so half duplex does not make sense.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-6)Section 9.3, paragraph 2:
     In item 5) character should be plural.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-7)Section 9.5.1, paragraph 3:
     There are two periods at the end of this sentence.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-8)Section 10.1, paragraph 5:
     In item b), the only should be dropped from the end of the
     sentence.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-9)Section 10.1.2, paragraph 7:
     The Receive Sequence Number field described here is incorrect.
     This should be the same definition used earlier (see Section
     7.1.3).

     RESPONSE: Accepted.  Same as IBM-1).

SYM-10)Section 10.5.1, paragraph 2:
     In item 1), Build an Response should be build a Response.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-11)Annex A, in general:
     Annex A has several references to (see 0).  I believe these
     references should point to someplace in the standard.  Please
     correct these.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.  Changed in 8 places.

SYM-12)Annex A, in general:
     Annex A makes many references to services (TARGET READ, INITIATOR
     READ, etc.).  These are not defined in the standard and should be
     referenced to some standard where they are defined (or they need
     to be defined in this standard).

     RESPONSE: Accepted.  Add references to Annex B where the services
     are described.

SYM-13)Annex A.4, paragraph 1:
     Sentence 1 should read services are intended rather than services
     in intended.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-14)Section 7.5 Data field, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence
     Was: The contents of the DATA field in Application Frames is
     defined in 11.3 and by the upper-level protocol.
     Change to: The contents of the DATA field in Application SMS's is
     defined in 11.3.

     RESPONSE: Accepted as modified.  Change to "The contents of the
     DATA field in SSA-TL1 Application SMS's is defined in 11.3."

SYM-15)Section 8.4 Flow Control, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence
     Was: In full-duplex operation a port could send an Acknowledgment
     for a received frame or a Receiver Ready, if buffer space is
     available, while it is in the middle of transmitting another
     frame.
     Change to: In full-duplex operation a port could send an
     Acknowledgment for a received frame or a Receiver Ready if buffer
     space is available, while it is in the middle of transmitting
     another frame.
     Rational: The only edit is to remove the comma before the phrase
     "if buffer space is available".  This is to ensure that this
     phrase is only associated with the transmission of an RR pair (as
     ACK transmission does not rely on having buffer space).

     RESPONSE: Accepted.

SYM-16)Section 11.2.3 Configure Port SMS, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence
     Was: The PORT field identifies the port that is being configured.
     Change to (the same definition as in Section 1.2.1): The PORT
     field contains an unsigned integer to identify the affected port.

     RESPONSE: Accepted.


Comments carried over from SSA-S2P comment resolution

S2P-1) Define Data frame and move the zero length Data frame
     restriction from S2p to an implementers note in TL1.

     RESPONSE: Add a definition and implementer's note as follows:
     Following clause 3.1.12, add the following definition.
     "3.1.13.  Data frame:   An Application frame with a non-zero
     Channel componet."

     Clause 7.5 (data field) after paragraph 3 - Add the following
     Implementer's note.
          Implementer's note 1: Some early implementations of SSA may
          not properly handle Data      frames with a zero length data
          field or an odd-byte length data field.


Sincerely,

John Scheible
SSA-TL1 editor
Voice:    (512) 823-8208
FAX:      (512) 823-0758
Email:    Scheible at vnet.ibm.com




More information about the T10 mailing list