X3T10 Minutes Corrections and Comments

Gene Milligan Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Thu Sep 19 21:09:24 PDT 1996


* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene Milligan <Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com>
*
Although I was not there I notice there is an item or two that needs correction:

>Gary Stephens asked about the status of merging SIP into SIP-2.  John   
Lohmeyer
>noted that such an action was still open to discussion and asked the   
committee
>to defer action on the topic until after the stabilization vote.

 Either Gary misspoke or the minutes should be corrected to "SIP into SPI-2".

>The committee reviewed the proposal to amend the SPI-2 project proposal   
>(96-221).  It was read aloud to the committee.  The amendment proposal was   
revised
>based on the committee's discussion.

>Bill Ham moved that X3T10 approve 96-221 as revised and thereby agree to
>revise the scope of project 1142-D  to include SIP.  Erich Oetting   seconded
>the motion.  The motion passed 25:3:0:21=49. 

 Hopefully someone that did attend will offer a change to the minutes that 
documents what the amendments were (e.g. editorial changes, changes recommended 
by the WG, or substantive changes) and if substantive what they were. I presume 
if recommended by the WG and substantive the WG minutes cover the changes.

>10.1  Letter Ballot Results on Forwarding MMC to First Public Review   
(96-030)[Lohmeyer]

>John reported that the letter ballot on forwarding MMC to first public  review 
passed 45:3:0:4.  The >detailed results can be found in 96-038.
 
>10.2  Letter Ballot Results on Forwarding SES to First Public Review  (96-036) 
[Lohmeyer]

>John reported that the letter ballot on forwarding SES to first public  review 
passed 44:2:0:6.  The >detailed results can be found in 96-038.

>10.3  Letter Ballot Results on Forwarding SPI Amendment #1 to First  Public 
Review (96-037) >[Lohmeyer]

>John reported that the letter ballot on forwarding SPI Amendment #1 to  first 
public review passed >44:0:0:8.  The detailed results can be found in  96-038.

 It would have been nice if these items addressed what the plan was to deal 
with the comments. The plan, however, can probably be deduced from the working 
group reports.

As editor of the reaffirmed version of SMD I am glad to see it out there for 
another five years. It is traumatic to keep seeing work product expiring but 
not as traumatic as the alternative. However I would have voted for its 
withdrawal. I am interested in the concept of needing a standard for 
maintaining installed base. I would appreciate expanded comments on this 
concept for guidance on future reaffirm/withdraw decisions.

>Larry Lamers moved that the original motion be amended to change   
>"optional" to "mandatory".  John Lohmeyer seconded the motion to amend.  The 
motion to   
>amend passed 25:2:1:21=49.  As amended, the motion read, "... make READ(6)   
>mandatory in SBC."  John Lohmeyer noted that this motion requires a 2/3rds 
vote to   
>pass since SBC is stabilized.  The amended motion failed 21:6:0:22=49 
because   
>less than half of the total committee membership voted in favor.

>Based on the information in 96-229r0, George Penokie moved that READ(6) be 
made mandatory >in a future version of SBC.  Jeff Williams seconded the motion. 
The motion passed 19:6:1:23=49.

 I think the amendment was defective since if it passed the motion would have 
had no impact. I think the amendment should have been "to change the original 
motion from "optional" to "remain mandatory and add the proviso that the editor 
be instructed to correct READ(6) in Rev 5 from optional to mandatory in Rev 6". 
But since the failed motion gained 78% approval and failed apparently only 
because attendance was down at this meeting, even though I oppose the 
amendment, I think the sense of the committee should be accommodated with a 
letter ballot on the motion.

>Ed Gardner moved that 96-237r1 be accepted for inclusion in a future version 
of SPC.  (Revision 1 >omits the incorrect phase about PERSISTENT  
RESERVATIONS.) Bob Snively seconded the >motion.  The motion passed 
27:0:0:22=49.

 With SCSI-2 in mind, "phase" should be "phrase".

>163)  Larry Lamers, John Lohmeyer and Gene Milligan will notify the membership 
of X3T10 and >X3T13 that the Boot Considerations TR project might be dropped.

 I recall this as an action item from the prior meeting rather than the 
September meeting. At any rate with respect to X3T13 it has previously been 
completed.

Gene
*
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com




More information about the T10 mailing list