Draft Minutes T10 Plenary Meeting #32 - July 15, 1999
John Lohmeyer
lohmeyer at t10.org
Thu Aug 12 10:17:14 PDT 1999
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Gene,
I have prepared revised minutes (99-202r1) incorporating virtually all of
your suggested changes as documented below.
Thank you for reviewing the minutes!
John
At 7/28/99 11:07 AM , you wrote:
>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
>*
><<and Gene Milligan said that ISO activities should proceed separately but
>follow the committee's actions.>>
>
> I think I said the first part and do not think I said the last part. I
>think it should be "and Gene Milligan said that ISO activities should
>proceed separately but be influenced by ANS actions."
Accepted.
><<Gene Milligan stated his preference that consideration of the standards
>be
>postponed to their renewal date.>>
>
> I think it was pertinent to include my comment concerning the SPI
>dedication. I think the minutes should state "Gene Milligan stated his
>preference that consideration of the standards be
>postponed to their renewal date and that the committee in the case of SPI
>give consideration to the dedication it contains."
Accepted.
><<Rob addressed concerns raised by Jeff Williams in the working group by
>stating
>that an additional proposal will be brought to the September meeting that
>adds
>the fairness counter principle that was dropped from 99-160r3. It had been
>dropped in the belief that a simpler proposal would have an easier time
>gaining approval.>>
>
> This is not clear to those not present, it should be "Rob addressed
>concerns raised by Jeff Williams in the working group by stating that an
>additional proposal for QAS fairness will be brought to the September
>meeting that adds the fairness counter principle that was dropped from
>99-160r3. The QAS fairness proposal had been dropped in the belief that
>the non QAS portion of the fairness proposal would have an easier time
>gaining approval."
Accepted.
><<Gene Milligan objected to the ruling of the chair regarding the two-week
>rule
>since he claimed it is in violation of the SD-2.>>
>
> The minutes sound biased and as is often the case "it" is a confusing
>reference. This should be "Gene Milligan objected to the ruling of the
>chair regarding the two-week rule
>since ruling is in violation of requirements stated in the SD-2."
Accepted.
><<Bob Snively requested an explanation of how these codes aid in error
>isolation. Rob stated that it would improve the information provided to
>users and service personnel. Gene Milligan stated that the codes can be
>used in the
>processing of returned drives.>>
>
> There is a context problem here. Bob's comments questioned not just
>these new codes but the value of ASCQs in general. My response was
>addressed at ASCQs and not these specific new codes.
Accepted. Sentence re-worded as follows: "Gene Milligan stated that in
general ASCQ codes can be used in the processing of returned drives."
><<Gene Milligan informed the committee of a problem with the `persist
>across
>power cycle' capability in persistent reservations that can render a drive
>inoperative. He stated that a proposal for changes will be presented to
>the
>September working group.>>
>
> Well the purpose of this was to highlight the problem. The minutes
>should state that "The prohibition of the Write Buffer command for
>downloading microcode prior to the drive becoming ready is the issue."
Accepted.
><<Gene Milligan gave an oral report and provided an electronic report in
>document T10/99-216r0.>>
>
> What does this mean? I presented the report using overheads (clears,
>foils, transparencies, whatever) and provided an electronic copy of the
>report for inclusion of the minutes. As far as I know all the items, except
>SFF, reported in the minutes were conveyed orally. Nevertheless they are in
>the minutes.
I think what you are asking is why was your report given a separate
document number instead of being placed directly into the minutes. It is
purely a matter of convenience for the Secretary. There is a lot of
formatting in the ISO report (particularly the table) that does not easily
import into the minutes file. Rather than spending a lot of time importing
a Word file into the Frame minutes file, Ralph and I decided to keep your
report intact as a separate document and to reference it from the minutes.
This formatting problem is especially aggravated by the need to export the
minutes into an ASCII file for reflector distribution; tables do not export
well. We did the same thing for Paul Aloisi's STA Liaison report.
><<Gene noted that the DIS is not yet available for approval, but that given
>the timing of the T10 meetings the opportunity to approve the DIS will
>likely expire before the September
>meeting.>>
>
> Well I also requested that George Penokie review what the differences
>between the ANS and the DIS consisted of. "George Penokie reported that the
>changes between the ANS and the DIS were the use of ISO/IEC publication
>numbers and editorial changes.
Accepted.
><< Pete McLean reported that the content of ATAPI-5 is technically complete
>and asked interested persons review it.>>
>
> This should be << Pete McLean reported that the content of ATA/ATAPI-5
>is technically complete and asked interested persons review it.>>
Accepted.
><<Gene Milligan reported that Peter Johansson was taking steps to fast
>track
>IEEE 1394 though SC 26.>>
>
> I doubt that I reported that at this meeting. Had my ISO/IEC report
>been included in the minutes it would be clear from the minutes that I had
>reported that SC 26 had requested that they be disbanded and that the work
>be assumed by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25/WG 4. Consequently if IEEE 1394 is fast
>tracked, as Peter Johansson has indicated in the past, it would be done by
>SC 25.
At first I wondered if this statement was a 'left over' statement from the
May minutes, however the May minutes just say 'no report'. So, I've
corrected the minutes by deleting the words 'through SC 26'.
><<313) John Lohmeyer will arrange a meeting to discuss changes and
>updates in
>the T10 procedures.>>
>
>> This should be "313) John Lohmeyer will arrange a meeting to discuss
>proposals for changes and updates to the T10 procedures."
>
Accepted.
><<319) Gene Milligan will submit a NWIP and a CD contribution for RBC to
>ISO/IEC for consideration.>>
>
> This should be "319) Gene Milligan will forward a ISO/IEC NWIP and a
>CD contribution for RBC to NCITS for further processing." Similar wording
>should be used for (335).
Accepted.
--
John Lohmeyer Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Logic Corp. Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr. Fax: +1-719-533-7183
Colo Spgs, CO 80907
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10
mailing list