94-188r0 -- Proposed INQUIRY command enhancements (a.k.a. TEST SUPPORT)
Ralph Weber -- VMS -- ZKO3-4/U14
weber at star.enet.dec.com
Wed Oct 19 12:19:30 PDT 1994
> My responses to Gene Milligan's comments are as follows:
You need to specify the response if both the EVPD and CmdDt bits are one,
> I do.
> If both the EVPD and CmdDt bits are zero, the device server shall
> return the standard INQUIRY data (see clause 7.5.1). . . .
> . . . If both the EVPD and CmdDt bits are one, the device
> server shall return CHECK CONDITION status with the sense key set to
> ILLEGAL REQUEST and an additional sense code of INVALID FIELD IN CDB.
"it shall 4 zero bytes" needs to be "it shall return four zero bytes"
A global solution to the version byte is needed but that is not unique to this
proposal. However since this proposal specifically accounts for back version
implementations, I don't understand how we can arbitrarily delete the ECMA
version field. I can understand how we could reduce it to a bit.
> I just put the ECMA version field back. Trying to rationalize version
> strategy plus trying to solve the reserved bits stuff is too much tilting
> at windmills for one proposal.
A fix to the typo "the contents of the ISO and ANSI-approved version fields
shall vendor-specific" is easy but I have a basic problem with the require-
ment. There is no vendor unique setting of the version number. Perhaps the
requirements should be restated to "interpretation of the version fields by
the initiator is vendor-specific.
> I added your proposed words.
This example assumes that the SAM defines uses for only the low-order three
bits of the Control byte.
> This comment does not appear to identify anything that needs changing.
> A 94-188r1 is in the works. Watch the SCSI Reflector nearest you.
More information about the T10