Draft Minutes of SCSI Protocol WG - 1/12/00

John Lohmeyer lohmeyer at t10.org
Tue Feb 22 13:27:23 PST 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Gene,

Thanks for the comments.  I've created rev 2 of 00-121 to address your
issues.  My responses to your comments are embedded below.

Regards,
John

At 2/15/2000 08:35 PM , Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:
><<At the November meeting, Gerry Houlder reported that work on the =
Device
Locks
>command will proceed toward a review of a revised proposal at the =
March
>working group meeting.>>
>
>     Why is this in the January meeting minutes?

Ordinarily I would not report from a prior meeting.  However, because =
you
suggested removing this agenda item at the meeting, I looked up the
November minutes to refresh my memory on why I had not deleted it.  I
included this sentence since it was reported during the discussion of
whether to delete this item at the January meeting.

><< Gene Milligan noted that his proposal (00-125, discussed in item =
5.10)
will
>cover the XOR commands, and could be extended to cover any command not
included
>in 99-259.>>
>
>     Perhaps the jet lag got me but I think I said Gerry Houlder's =
proposal.
>This is clarified in item 5.10.

Sentence corrected as follows:

"Gene Milligan noted that Gerry Houlder=92s proposal (00-125, discussed =
in
item 5.10) will cover the XOR commands, and could be extended to cover =
any
command not included in 99-259."

>
><< The group agreed that Tom Coughlan should be
>notified of plans to leave READ LONG and WRITE LONG out of 99-259.>>
>
>     I did not agree with that. I agreed that he should be contacted =
but if a
>remedy is needed I think it should be by adding a service action to =
the
variable
>length CDB. This can be inferred from the next statement in the =
minutes.

I am having a hard time understanding what it is that you object to in =
the
minutes.  Are you concerned that the first sentence implies that we =
might
leave READ LONG and WRITE LONG in the 16-byte CDBs if Tom objects?  I =
think
the second sentence is clear that the group preferred to use a
variable-length CDB in this case.  If you can suggest clearing wording,
I'll be glad to revise the minutes.

><<The group agreed that it was a good idea to use the variable length =
CDB
format
>for infrequently used commands such as the XOR commands.>>
>
>     I did not agree that they should be used only for infrequently =
use
commands
>nor that XOR commands were infrequently used. I agreed not to object =
to
>potential early implementors that may already be working on George's =
proposal
>for Arrays that may need the commands on the host interface earlier =
than disc
>drives with XOR commands. Some people may have concluded the above but =
I
do not
>recall any such discussion definitely did not participate in any such
agreement.

I deleted the phrase, "infrequently used".

><<The group was unable to review all of the HP comments.>>
>
>     I don't think this was a reflection on the group's ability and =
should
be "
>The group was unable to review all of the HP comments due the time
required and
>asked the editor to use his judgment in addressing the remaining =
comments."

I changed the wording as you suggested.


--
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