SPI-3 & Packetized

gop at us.ibm.com gop at us.ibm.com
Thu Dec 10 08:51:36 PST 1998


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* gop at us.ibm.com
*
Larry,
I agree but in July when this was discussed there was no support for
keeping packetized on ST. The code 1h in the protocol options field was for
packetized on ST. I would be glad to put it back in but the committee would
have vote on it.

Bye for now,
George Penokie

Dept EGB  114-2 N212
E-Mail:    gop at us.ibm.com
Internal:  553-5208
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-5208




"Lawrence J. Lamers" <ljlamers at ix.netcom.com> on 12/10/98 07:46:09 AM

To:   George Penokie/Rochester/IBM, "Lawrence J. Lamers"
      <ljlamers at ix.netcom.com>
cc:   t10 at Symbios.COM
Subject:  SPI-3 & Packetized





* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* "Lawrence J. Lamers" <ljlamers at ix.netcom.com>
*
George,

I was reviewing SPI-3 and suddenly realized that packet protocol is
restricted to DT DATA phases.  I don't remember this decision being made.
Is there a technical reason for this?

It is my belief that DT will fail in many existing backplane designs; if we
speed negotiate down to ST or SE we loose any CRC protection.  If we
convince the world to go packetized shouldn't it be available independant
of the physical layer?
Regards,

==========================================
Lawrence J. Lamers                     Adaptec, Inc
email:   ljlamers at ieee.org            691 South Milpitas Blvd.
Phone: (408) 578-1709                 Milpitas, CA  95035


*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com





*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com





More information about the T10 mailing list