98-115r0 - Sundry Minor Enhancements for SPC-2

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Mon Feb 2 06:54:27 PST 1998


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*
<<"If the information being transferred to the data-in buffer includes
   fields containing counts of the number of bytes in some or all of the
   data, the contents of these fields shall not be altered to reflect the
   truncation, if any, of data that results from an insufficient allocation
   length value, unless the description of the data-in buffer format
   specifically states otherwise in this or some other standard.">>

     Is this part of the longest sentence contest? Or alternatively is this
a ploy by ANSI to sell more standards. I gather to determine the full
requirement, all standards must be purchased.

<<The following should be added at the end of the third paragraph after
Table 36 in clause 7.20.1 to embody the committee's position in SPC-2:
   "If a field whose length exceeds one byte is reserved, it shall be
   treated as a multiple-byte field.  If several consecutive bytes are
   individually reserved, each shall be treated as a single-byte field.">>

     Assuming that Table 63 was meant rather than Table 36, the more
important point is to make it clear that reserved fields should not be
checked.


Rather than << "If a device server receives a CDB containing an operation
code that is
   invalid or not supported by that device server, target, or device, then
   the device server shall return CHECK CONDITION status with the sense key
   set to ILLEGAL REQUEST and an additional sense code of INVALID COMMAND
   OPERATION CODE.">> couldn't we just say  "If a SCSI device receives a
CDB containing an operation code that is    invalid or not supported then
CHECK CONDITION status with the sense key
   set to ILLEGAL REQUEST and an additional sense code of INVALID COMMAND
   OPERATION CODE shall be returned."

<<the IEEE Tutorial for SCSI use of IEEE company_id (also available as
T10/97-101r2)>>
     To completely understand this tutorial, a T11 document is needed. It
is not clear that the T11 document is as available as the T10 document. In
addition the tutorial also requires an ANSI standard which is not listed in
its references nor is the title given (FC-PH). Consequently it is not clear
whether the reference is to FC-PH or to one of several amendments which are
also known by the same ANSI number.

<<Unless or until an IEEE document number than can be referenced from an
ANSI standard becomes known to T10, note 53 (the first note in clause
8.4.3) should be removed from SPC-2.>>

     The first note does not have any relationship to IEEE, precedes the
wrong table, and seems to be in the wrong standard. But to the point that
may be trying to be made, has anyone asked the IEEE office? In our case, we
obtained the IEEE assignment prior to the generation of the tutorial.
Consequently we can not bear witness as to whether the tutorial is being
provided.

<<   "Each Identification descriptor (see table 111) contains information
   identifying the logical unit, physical device, or access path used
   by the command and returned parameter data.  The Association field
   indicates the entity that the Identification descriptor describes.
   If a physical or logical device returns an Identification descriptor
   with  the Association field set to 0h, it shall return the same
   descriptor when it is accessed through any other path.">>

     This is not ready for prime time and needs further WG discussion. At
least in the case of a dual port unit on the same parallel SCSI bus it is
not the same addressed logical device. It is nearly the same. But it is not
clear that the descriptor has any information about the access path.

Gene


*
* 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