Draft Minutes of SCSI Protocol WG - 1/12/00
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>
Thanks for the comments. I've created rev 2 of 00-121 to address your
issues. My responses to your comments are embedded below.
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 =
>command will proceed toward a review of a revised proposal at the =
>working group meeting.>>
> Why is this in the January meeting minutes?
Ordinarily I would not report from a prior meeting. However, because =
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 =
>cover the XOR commands, and could be extended to cover any command not
> Perhaps the jet lag got me but I think I said Gerry Houlder's =
>This is clarified in item 5.10.
Sentence corrected as follows:
"Gene Milligan noted that Gerry Houlder=92s proposal (00-125, discussed =
item 5.10) will cover the XOR commands, and could be extended to cover =
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 =
>length CDB. This can be inferred from the next statement in the =
I am having a hard time understanding what it is that you object to in =
minutes. Are you concerned that the first sentence implies that we =
leave READ LONG and WRITE LONG in the 16-byte CDBs if Tom objects? I =
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 =
>for infrequently used commands such as the XOR commands.>>
> I did not agree that they should be used only for infrequently =
>nor that XOR commands were infrequently used. I agreed not to object =
>potential early implementors that may already be working on George's =
>for Arrays that may need the commands on the host interface earlier =
>drives with XOR commands. Some people may have concluded the above but =
>recall any such discussion definitely did not participate in any such
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 =
>The group was unable to review all of the HP comments due the time
>asked the editor to use his judgment in addressing the remaining =
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