Draft Minutes of T10 Plenary meeting #39

Aloisi, Paul paul_aloisi at ti.com
Mon Sep 25 04:15:45 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Aloisi, Paul" <paul_aloisi at ti.com>
*
Gene,

George did the overview of the proposal for the SPI-4 electrical
specifications.

I had decided not to support the proposal by this time. The Seagate numbers
do not agree with data that has been taken over the last three years. Yes,
systems can be that good, but most large configurations are not. The
backplane data is not in place, which needs to be there to support reduction
in losses. This has to come from the PIP and SSM group. Note: Seagate data
|from last year, Adaptec from last year, and Quantum data presented at the
meetings does not support the low loss proposal presented by Seagate in
April and all the data since. Data from historical LVD SCSI testing shows
the rise time, measuring the bit time positions it was clear years ago what
the losses on systems were. Backplanes still use FR4 and the spacing problem
has gotten greater with the move from 1.6 to 1 inch drives.

I would like one proposal that supports the bus losses seen historically and
test both precomp and AAF. You will need both for the next generation. You
will need some solid data from PIP and SSM for the next generation (SPI-5),
the initial data shows twist and flat cables and some backplanes actual
filter the next step, creating very high losses at the frequency we need to
receive signals.

There are 4 masks in the proposal, one for Clock (which does not have the
first pulse problem) and one for each of the other technologies on the first
pulse.

Thank you,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: Gene.Milligan at seagate.com [mailto:Gene.Milligan at seagate.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 12:45 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: Draft Minutes of T10 Pleanry meeting #39


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
*

<< Bob stated that the target date for forwarding FCP-2 is November 2001.>>

     Why did we letter ballot it?

<<Gene Milligan asked John Lohmeyer to change the forwarding date for SBC-2
to
July 2001. >>

     I think this would be more informative if it went on to "Gene Milligan
asked John Lohmeyer to change the forwarding date for SBC-2 to July 2001 to
match the schedule approved by T10 during the March meeting."

<< In the absence of any objections, the OSD working group was authorized
to approve its own changes in the OSD draft.>>

     In the same vane I think this should be " In the absence of any
objections, the
OSD working group was authorized to approve its own changes in the OSD
draft since at the moment it was not practical for T10 to provide a time
for the OSD ad hoc before the plenary in the T10 meeting week."

<<develop a cover style guide containing references the ISO/IEC directives.
The
motion passed on a vote of 19:1:1:19=40.  Gene Milligan took an action to
create the T10 style guide document and MSword templates.>>

     A couple nits. This should be "develop a cover style guide containing
references to the ISO/IEC directives.  The
motion passed on a vote of 19:1:1:19=40.  Gene Milligan took an action to
create the T10 style guide document with links to the corresponding ISO/IEC
MSword templates (dot files)."

<<George Penokie provided an overview of the proposal, indicating that
there are
four receiver masks in the proposal and that two of the four masks are
mandatory. >>

     Did he really? I thought Paul had proposed three masks. One similar to
the mask accepted in the Colorado springs working group prior to SPI-4 Rev
0 (99-295r5), another also using precomp but with BUS losses greater than
the Seagate testing has shown, and a third for no precomp and even higher
BUS losses. If George said four perhaps he was referring to the mask from
SPI-3 that presumably still applies. In any case I believe the proposal was
for the masks to be optional in the sense that the mask chosen would depend
upon whether precomp was negotiated on or off and on whether or not the BUS
met T10 specifications or not. The proposal, I believe made it mandatory to
use the one of three masks that met the above conditions. Perhaps again two
of four masks mandatory means one is mandatory for Fast 80 and a chosen one
of three is mandatory for Fast 160.

     Since Bill Ham made a rather lengthy presentation with slides
concerning this item the minutes should mention his presentation and cite
the document number of the presentation.

<<John Lohmeyer moved that 00-257r3 be approved for inclusion in SPI-4
and/or
SPC-3.  Paul Aloisi seconded the motion.  The motion passed on a vote of
15:1:6:18=40.>>

     I think the minutes should also document the statements made about how
the two editors would arrive at what part of the approved proposal goes
into which standard.

<<half the total committee membership did not vote in favor>>

     For clarity this should be ">half the total committee membership did
not vote in
favor" and even more accurate would be in this case ">(half the total
committee membership - 6) did not vote in
favor"

<<and that the five questions be answered with `we will not provide
resources to revise
the standard' and that the U.S. version of the standard is ANSI
X3.131:1994.>>

     I think this was actually "and that the five questions be answered
appropriately for a vote to CONFIRM with `we will not provide resources to
revise the standard in the case of the vote outcome being to revise' and
that the U.S. version of the standard is ANSI X3.131:1994."

<<John Lohmeyer reported that NCITS has a policy of automatically
submitting
approved ISO/IEC standards as replacements for their equivalent ANSI
standard.>>

     I think this should be "John Lohmeyer reported that NCITS has a policy
of automatically adopting
approved ISO/IEC standards as ANSI standards within the scope of NCITS."

<<The
committee discussed whether non-US standards would be automatically adopted
as
American National Standards. >>

     I do not think so. I think this should be "The committee discussed
whether ISO/IEC standards would be automatically adopted as American
National Standards." I am certain we did not talk about standards such as
DIN and JEDEC.

<<399)   Gene Milligan will create the T10 style guide document and MSword
templates.>>

     Should be "399)   Gene Milligan will create the T10 style guide
document with links to the ISO/IEC MSword
templates."

<<For more information about T10 activities, please contact the following
people:>>

     I notice that the contact for OSD activity is not listed.

Gene











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