Draft Minutes of T10 Pleanry meeting #39

John Lohmeyer lohmeyer at t10.org
Mon Sep 25 10:03:18 PDT 2000


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

I've prepared 00-308r1, which includes the changes noted below.

Thanks for your comments!
John


At 11:44 PM 9/21/2000, you wrote:
>* 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?


I think Ralph answered this question.  In my mind a draft is not forwarded 
until the letter ballot comments are resolved and a draft is sent to NCITS 
for further processing.  FCP-2 has not achieved this milestone yet.  I 
actually expect that we'll beat the Nov '01 date by several months, but I 
prefer being pessimistic when reporting to NCITS.

><<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."

Changed as suggested.

><< 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."

Changed as suggested.

><<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)."

Changed as suggested.

><<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.

I believe Paul Aloisi answered the question of what is the fourth mask in 
his reflector posting. I added the phrase '(one for the clock and 3 for 
various receiver options)' to the first sentence.

The minutes do mention Bill Ham's presentation in the next sentence 
including the document number, 'Bill Ham presented a discussion opposed to 
the motion (00-366)'.  Since you usually object to words like 'lengthy', I 
did not include it.

><<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.

I do not remember precisely what was said in the plenary meeting, but I 
recall agreeing to work with George Penokie (SPI-4 editor) and Ralph Weber 
(SPC-3 editor) to include this proposal into their drafts.  Please note 
that the ECP proposal is already written as an informative annex for SPI-4 
with only a couple minor changes in SPC-n to expand the mode field in the 
READ BUFFER and WRITE BUFFER commands by one bit.  At the SDV working group 
meeting, George lobbied for putting less of ECP into SPI-4 and more into 
SCP-3.  I do not fundamentally object to this idea, but it will be more 
work than incorporating the proposal as written.  I've added the following 
statement into the pleanry minutes: "George Penokie, Ralph Weber, and John 
Lohmeyer will work together to incorporate ECP into SPI-4 and SPC-3."

><<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"

I changed this phrase as follows: "(greater than [one-half the total 
committee membership minus the 6 abstains] 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."

Changed as suggested.

><<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."

Changed as suggested.

><<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.

Changed as suggested.

><<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."

Changed as suggested.

><<For more information about T10 activities, please contact the following
>people:>>
>
>      I notice that the contact for OSD activity is not listed.

Added.


--
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