Minutes of 9/13-14/94 SCSI Working Group

John Lohmeyer jlohmeye at ncr-mpd.FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
Tue Sep 20 17:42:59 PDT 1994

Accredited Standards Committee
X3, Information Processing Systems
                                         Doc. No.: X3T10/94-187r0
                                             Date: Sept 20, 1994
                                        Ref. Doc.: 
                                         Reply to: J. Lohmeyer

To:         Membership of X3T10

From:       Weber/Lohmeyer

Subject:    Minutes of X3T10 SCSI Working Group  September 13-14, 1994


1.    Opening Remarks

2.    Attendance and Membership

3.    Approval of Agenda

4.    Physical Topics
   4.1   Fast-20 Node Capacitance (94-103r2, -151r0, -163r0)
   4.2   Higher Density Connector (94-160) [Whiteman\Lohmeyer]
   4.3   3.3-volt SCSI Issues (94-164r1) [Aloisi]
   4.4   Review of SCAM Annex in SPI Rev 13 [Johansson]
   4.5   Fast-20 Synchronous Negotiation Period Values [Harris]

5.    Protocol Topics

   5.1   SAM Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 994D) [Monia]
      5.1.1     Incorporating Dual Port into SAM (reflector messages)
      5.1.2     Status Precedence (94-171r0 & reflector messages) [Monia]
      5.1.3     Mandatory vs. Optional Features (94-172r0 & reflector
                messages) [Monia]
      5.1.4     ACA Recovery Methods Supported by a Logical Unit (94-177r0)
   5.2   SBP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 992D)
      5.2.1     Proposed changes to SBP Isochronous Data Handling (94-161)
   5.3   FCP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 993D) [Snively]
   5.4   Should SIP require an IDENTIFY message? (reflector messages)
   5.5   Request Transfer Parameters message (reflector message) [Porter]

6.    Command Set Topics
   6.1   Reserve & Release in SPC (94-106r2) [Weber]
   6.2   PORT STATUS Operation Code (94-176r0) [Weber]
   6.3   SCSI-3 INQUIRY Command (94-079r1) [McGrath]
   6.4   Data Recovery on Deferred Errors (94-067r2) [Houlder]
   6.5   FORMAT MEDIUM Command for SSC (94-146r3) [Cummings]
   6.6   Enhanced READ BUFFER command (94-128) [Lappin]
   6.7   Enhanced Partition Mode Pages for SSC (94-152r0) [Lappin]
   6.8   SCSI Queuing Data Integrity Problem? (reflector messages)
   6.9   QErr bit and Multi-Initiator (reflector messages) [Binford]
   6.10  TB, DTE, and PER bit interaction (reflector messages) [McGrath]
   6.11  SPC Rev. 2 review [Weber]
   6.12  Proposal for TEST SUPPORT command (94-178) [Weber]

7.    Other Topics
   7.1   Japanese Comments on CD 9316-1 (SCSI-2) [Lamers]
   7.2   TIB on SCSI-2 Logging Operations (94-168r0) [Penokie]
   7.3   TIB on SCSI-2 Sequential Access Partition Management (94-169r0)
   7.4   FCP Again [Milligan]

8.    Meeting Schedule

9.    Adjournment


                              Results of Meeting

1.    Opening Remarks

John Lohmeyer, the Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., September
13, 1994.  He thanked Bill Galloway of Compaq Computer for hosting the

As is customary, the people attending introduced themselves.  A copy of the
attendance list was circulated for attendance and corrections.

It was stated that the meeting had been authorized by X3T10 and would be
conducted under the X3 rules.  Ad hoc meetings take no final actions, but
prepare recommendations for approval by the X3T10 task group.  The voting
rules for the meeting are those of the parent committee, X3T10.  These rules
are:  one vote per company; and any participating company member may vote.

The minutes of this meeting will be posted to the SCSI BBS and the SCSI
Reflector and will be included in the next committee mailing.

2.    Attendance and Membership

Attendance at working group meetings does not count toward minimum attendance
requirements for X3T10 membership.  Working group meetings are open to any
person or company to attend and to express their opinion on the subjects
being discussed.

The following people attended the meeting:

         Name          S        Organization         Electronic Mail Address
---------------------- -- ------------------------- -------------------------
Mr. Norm Harris        P  Adaptec, Inc.             nharris at eng.adaptec.com
Mr. Lawrence J. Lamers A# Adaptec, Inc.             ljlamers at aol.com
Mr. Jack Newman        V  Adaptec, Inc.
Mr. Neil T. Wanamaker  P  Amdahl Corp.              ntw20 at eng.amdahl.com
Mr. Michael Wingard    A  Amphenol Interconnect
Mr. Ken Scherzinger    V  Amphenol Spectra Strip
Mr. Gary Porter        A  Ancot Corp.               garyp at ancot.com
Mr. Jerry Fredin       V  AT&T Global Info.         Jerry.Fredin at WichitaKS.NC
                          Solutions                 R.COM
Mr. John Lohmeyer      P  AT&T/ NCR                 john.lohmeyer at ftcollinsco
                          Microelectronics          .ncr.com
Mr. Jason Albanus      P  Burr-Brown Corp.          Albanus_Jason at bbrown.com
Mr. Joe Stoupa         A  Burr-Brown Corp.          Stoupa_Joe at bbrown.com
Mr. Ian Morrell        P  Circuit Assembly Corp.    crctassmbl at aol.com
Mr. Joe Chen           P  Cirrus Logic Inc.         chen at cirrus.com
Mr. Bill Galloway      P  Compaq Computer Corp.     billg at bangate.compaq.com
Mr. George Scholhamer  V  Compaq Computer Corp.     georges at bangate.compaq.co
Mr. Jim McCarty        V  Compaq Computer Corp.     jmccarty at bangate.compaq.c
Mr. Peter Johansson    P  Congruent Software, Inc.  pjohansson at aol.com
Mr. Louis Grantham     P  Dallas Semiconductor      grantham at dalsemi.com
Mr. Charles Monia      P  Digital Equipment Corp.   monia at starch.enet.dec.com
Mr. William Dallas     A# Digital Equipment Corp.   dallas at wasted.enet.dec.co
Mr. Edward A. Gardner  A  Digital Equipment Corp.   gardner at acm.com
Mr. Ralph Weber        A# Digital Equipment Corp.   weber at star.enet.dec.com
Dr. William Ham        A# Digital Equipment Corp.   ham at subsys.enet.dec.com
Mr. Douglas Hagerman   A# Digital Equipment Corp.   hagerman at starch.enet.dec.
Mr. I. Dal Allan       P  ENDL                      2501752 at mcimail.com
Mr. Kenneth J. Hallam  A  ENDL                      khallam at endlas.com
Mr. Edward Lappin      P  Exabyte Corp.             tedl at exabyte.com
Mr. Gary R. Stephens   P  FSI Consulting Services   6363897 at mcimail.com
Mr. Jeffrey L.         P  Hewlett Packard Co.       jlw at hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Mr. Bill Hutchison     V  Hewlett Packard Co.       hutch at boi.hp.com
Ms. Nancy Cheng        O  Hitachi Computer Products n_cheng at hitachi.com
Mr. George Penokie     P  IBM Corp.                 gop at rchvmp3.vnet.ibm.com
Mr. Ken Cummings       O  IBM Corp.                 kcummings at vnet.ibm.com
Mr. Giles Frazier      O  IBM Corp.                 gfrazier at ausvm6.vnet.ibm.
Mr. Larry Grasso       V  IBM Corp.                 lgrasso at ausvm6.vnet.ibm.c
Mr. Gary Brandvold     A  Iomega Corp.              gdbrandv at iomega.com
Mr. Dean Wallace       P  Linfinity Micro
Mr. Ron Roberts        P  Maxtor Corp.              rkroberts at aol.com
Mr. John Cannon        A  Methode Electronics, Inc.
Mr. Chris Nieves       O  Micropolis Corp.          Chris_Nieves at microp.com
Mr. Clifford Carlson   O  NCCOSC RDTE DIV 821       wcarlson at nosc.mil
Mr. Robert J.          O  NCCOSC RDTE DIV 821       gallenbe at nosc.mil
Mr. Dan Davies         O  Overland Data Inc.        ddavies at ctsnet.cts.com
Mr. Skip Jones         P  QLogic Corp.              sk_jones at qlc.com
Mr. James McGrath      P  Quantum Corp.             JMCGRATH at QNTM.COM
Mr. Gene Milligan      P  Seagate Technology        Gene_Milligan at notes.seaga
Mr. Gerald Houlder     A  Seagate Technology        Gerry_Houlder at notes.seaga
Mr. Thomas 'Rick'      O  Sequoia Advanced Tech.,   thomas.tewell at seqadvtech.
Tewell                    Inc.                      com
Mr. Stephen G. Finch   P  Silicon Systems, Inc.     5723283 at mcimail.com
Mr. Scott Smyers       P  Sony Corp. of America     scotts at lsi.sel.sony.com
Mr. Erich Oetting      P  Storage Technology Corp.  Erich_Oetting at Stortek.com
Mr. Robert N. Snively  P  Sun Microsystems Computer bob.snively at eng.sun.com
Mr. Patrick Mercer     P  SyQuest Technology Corp.  74754.1370 at compuserve.com
Mr. Kevin Gingerick    V  Texas Instruments         4307725 at mcimail.com
Mr. David Allen        V  Texas Instruments         daln at timsg.csc.ti.com
Mr. Paul D. Aloisi     P  Unitrode Integrated       Aloisi at uicc.com
Mr. Tak Asami          A  Western Digital           asami at dt.wdc.com
Mr. Duncan Penman      P  Zadian Technologies       penman at netcom.com

58 People Present

Status Key:  P    -  Principal
             A,A# -  Alternate
             O    -  Observer
             L    -  Liaison
             V    -  Visitor

3.    Approval of Agenda

The proposed agenda was approved.

4.    Physical Topics

4.1   Fast-20 Node Capacitance (94-103r2, -151r0, -163r0) [Novak,Ham,Lamers]

Gene Milligan started by raising questions about the slew rate test circuity. 
Bill Ham agreed to address those questions during this discussion.

Bill Ham displayed the results of his 20 pF device testing.  Bill noted that
using 20 pF loads did not recover enough margin to recommend any changes in
the configuration specifications.  When questioned, Bill noted that, although
the margin improved, it did not improve enough to permit adding more devices
or longer cables.  Bill showed several oscilloscope traces from his 20 pF

Norm Harris followed with a description of his Fast-20 testing data.  A
modified chip was used to send data and ACK signals at the Fast-20 rate. 
Various SCSI peripheral devices were used as loads, but they did not actually
receive the data.  He noted that his data does not cover the capacitance
issues very well.  Norm said that the data is preliminary and he promised
better data in November.

Three configurations were shown; a 3 meter bus length, 4 bus loads, and a
configuration that Norm described as typical of add-in host adapters.  The
typical configuration had 2 internal drives and 1 external CDROM drive. 
Norm's data looked encouraging to the working group.

The meeting returned to Gene's test circuit question.  The standard says that
the slew rate test circuit shall have a capacitance of 15 pF.  Is that the
total capacitance, or the capacitance external to the driver (in the test
circuit)?  The working group agreed that 15 pF is the capacitance of the test
circuit (external to the driver).  The Fast-20 document will be modified to
clarify this point.

John Lohmeyer called for a working group statement regarding 20 pF
capacitance followed by a vote at the Plenary.  Norm Harris moved that the
current Fast-20 specification (of 20 pf) be left unchanged.  Bill Galloway
seconded the motion.  Jim McGrath questioned the need for 20 pF, based on the
data presented earlier in the meeting.  Jim noted the problems with
switchable internal terminators in drives.  Jim and Bill Galloway offered
customer-based reasons for their preferences.   The motion failed 10:13.

Jim McGrath moved that the Fast-20 standard be changed to require 25 pF. 
Erich Oetting seconded the motion.  The motion passed 14:5.

Bill Ham requested that the annex describing the value of lower load
capacitance be completed.  Kevin Gingerich said that he has a draft of the
annex almost ready.

4.2   Higher Density Connector (94-160) [Whiteman\Lohmeyer]

John Lohmeyer described a perceived need for a higher density connector. 
John admitted that he had not written the project proposal for the new
connector.  John promised to get the project proposal written for the next
mailing.  Bob Whiteman was not present.

Gene Milligan asked if Small Form Factor might already being doing this work. 
Bill Ham noted that X3T10 work would be preferable to SFF work, provided that
X3T10 is truly interested (as gauged by support for the project proposal). 
Jim McGrath noted that a project proposal must scope the task to general
connector characteristics, not specific connector vendor products.  Issues
regarding the project scope were discussed in detail, providing guidance to
John for writing the project proposal.

4.3   3.3-volt SCSI Issues (94-164r1) [Aloisi]

Paul Aloisi presented a discussion of Termpwr in a 3.3 volt SCSI environment. 
Paul's first point, that a diode drop does not work, generated significant
complaints from Bill Ham and Gene Milligan.

Paul recommended a unidirectional circuit breaker.  George Penokie read the
SPI document to prove that Paul's recommendation is sanctioned by the
existing standard.  Paul recommended a different SCSI icon for 3.3 volt
systems and a T-bar symbol for systems that cannot provide termpwr to the end
of the bus.  Paul noted that all 3.3 volt systems must use active
termination.  Paul proposed an informative annex for SPI dealing with laptop
SCSI bus termination issues.

Further probing the circuit breaker issue, Gene Milligan asked about Unitrode
patents.  Paul said that elements of their unidirectional circuit breaker are
patented.  However, Paul said that he thought that equivalent circuit
breakers can be built without infringing Unitrode patents.

Bill Ham said that many other issues arise in a 3.3 volt environment.  He
expressed a belief that a study group should be started to develop a micro-
SCSI (SPI-2) standard.  (Note: X3T10 assigned this topic to Tuesday morning
of the SCSI-3 Working Group in November.)

4.4   Review of SCAM Annex in SPI Rev 13 [Johansson]

Peter Johansson described how he and Larry tried to make a more readable SCAM
document via editorial (wording) changes.  Peter answered several questions
regarding the revised SCAM document.  Peter described some comments that he
received in electronic mail.

4.5   Fast-20 Synchronous Negotiation Period Values [Harris]

Norm Harris led a discussion of possible transfer period values for 20 mega-
transfers per second: 52, 48, and 44 nanoseconds.  After a lengthy
discussion, Larry took a straw poll as follows:

                                           For       Against              
      1) Transfer Period of 48 => 50        4           12
      2) 20.8 mHz instead of 20 mHz        11            7
      3) New/redefined message              8           11

Option 1 means that the current SDTR message protocol remains, but a TP of
48 is defined to mean a TP of 50 (which is not truely expressable under the
current rules).  Option 2 means that the Fast-20 project redefines its
maximum transfer rate to be 20.8 mega-transfers per second (as opposed to the
current 20 mega-transfers per second).  Option 3 is a yet-to-be-defined
change in the message protocol that replaces the current SDTR message.  The
group recessed for lunch.

After lunch, Norm Harris moved that in a SDTR message a transfer period
factor of 12 means a transfer period of 50 nanoseconds.  Gene Milligan
seconded the motion.  The motion passed 18:7.

5.    Protocol Topics

5.1   SAM Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 994D) [Monia]

Charles Monia presented a review of his comments resolution document,
94-173r1.  Charles referenced each comment and asked those present
(particularly the person who submitted the comment) to review the resolution. 
Then, Charles reviewed other SAM changes listed toward the end of the
94-173r1 document.

An implementer's note stating a requirement for a mechanism that a driver can
use to determine supported options was removed based on negative working
group comments.  Inclusion of the dual port material generated several
questions and comments.  At Charles' request, the working group unanimously
endorsed 94-173r1 as amended as a proper and complete resolution of the SAM
letter ballot comments.

5.1.1    Incorporating Dual Port into SAM (reflector messages) [Monia]

Charles presented document 94-186r0.  The issue to be addressed is how BUS
DEVICE RESET and BUS DEVICE RESET OTHER PORT function with respect to ACA. 
While Charles had pushed off much of the dual port discussion during the
previous agenda item, the swamp really began to stink here.  Jeff Williams
noted that dual port definitions affect many (if not most) of the object
definitions and other text in the SAM.

Charles agreed to withdraw 94-186r0 from X3T10 discussions until a larger
electronic mail discussion provides better direction for the document's
contents.  Charles also noted that SAM revision 15 contains plenty of the
dual port material that needs a better group review.

The working group then discussed the intention of the Plenary (several years
ago) when the dual port documents were approved.  Did those approved
documents apply to SAM?  Or, did the Plenary intend that the documents apply
to SIP?  This issue was not resolved.

5.1.2    Status Precedence (94-171r0 & reflector messages) [Monia]

Charles presented a proposal for precedence ordering among possible SCSI
status code values.  This immediately was met with, "How does this affect the
public review process for SAM?" questions.

Eventually, the working group held a short discussion of the technical issues
represented by the proposal.  A small editorial change was accepted by
Charles.  The change had the effect of placing all the status codes named in
the proposal on an equal precedence basis.  Then, the working group
unanimously endorsed the amended 94-171r0 as a proper addition to SAM. 
However, Charles and the working group agreed to set the proposal aside for
SAM-2.  The group also felt that a Plenary vote supporting these decisions
might be appropriate.

5.1.3    Mandatory vs. Optional Features (94-172r0 & reflector messages)

Charles presented a proposal regarding how mandatory and optional features
in SAM affect other SCSI-3 standards documents.  He received several
editorial comments.  The working group discussed the purposes of standards,
the relationships of standards documents, and the effects of normative
references in a standard.  The objective seemed to be developing an
understanding of how precedence relationships should be described among the
various SCSI-3 standards documents.  Various examples were cited, such as:
task set management, requirements for abort handling, and status code value

As the allotted time elapsed, Charles proposed that the discussion continue
in electronic mail.

5.1.4    ACA Recovery Methods Supported by a Logical Unit (94-177r0) [Monia]

Charles noted that initiators currently have no mechanism for determining
which usages of the CONTROL byte ACA bit are supported by the SCSI device. 
Charles presented a proposal for added bits in the INQUIRY data to
communicate the target's ACA bit support.  Bob Snively stated his belief that
the zero state of the ACA bit should be mandatory.  Jeff Williams stated his
support for the current (both ACA bit states optional) situation.  The
discussion then ranged over all previously mentioned topics, plus the TEST
SUPPORT proposal and the error recovery mechanics of serial busses.

A straw poll was taken regarding the acceptability making mandatory device
support for ACA equals zero in the CONTROL byte.  The straw poll passed
10:4:8.  Bob Snively agreed to write the proposal for making ACA=0 mandatory.

This was followed by a continued discussion of how ACA, CA, and failure
processing should work in a queuing environment.  There was no obvious
resolution to the issue.

After an offline discussion, Bob Snively presented a revised proposal.  The
proposal defines only one new bit, an ACA Autoclear bit in the Standard
INQUIRY data.  Bob drew several pictures on a blank overhead foil.  The
discussion probed many details of the proposal.  The secretary had great
difficulty copying the charts Bob drew to the minutes.  Eventually, Bob
agreed to draft a document that describes the new proposal (94-189r0).

5.2   SBP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 992D) [Lamers/Roberts]

Larry Lamers reported that the forwarding letter ballot comments have been
resolved.  The resolutions have been published and no one has complained
about an unsatisfactory resolution for their comments.  Larry anticipated a
vote to forward to public review at the Plenary meeting.

5.2.1    Proposed changes to SBP Isochronous Data Handling (94-161) [Smyers]

There was no discussion on this item.  Those that care apparently agree with
the proposal and it is being incorporated into SBP.

5.3   FCP Forwarding Comments Resolution (Project 993D) [Snively]

Bob Snively reported on changes in directions regarding the Abort Tast, Abort
Task Set, Clear Task Set, and Target Reset task management functions.  The
profiles group and the engineers building FC-AL products have asked for
changes in how these functions are defined.  The changes place a greater
burden on the initiator.  No one present raised strongly held objections to
either the current FCP statements or the changes.

The major issues were procedural.  The best way to get the consensus version
of FCP on the Plenary agenda for forwarding to public review was discussed. 
Larry noted that the plan presented by Bob could be blocked by the two-week
rule at the Plenary.

The discussion torpedoed when Jeff Williams suggested that the text in
question was introduced as a response to one of the early letter ballot
comments.  Bob, Larry, Jeff, and John spent several minutes trying to
identify the FCP revision in which the text under discussion were introduced
after the FCP revision that accompanied the letter ballot.

(See 7.4 for a continuation of this discussion.)

5.4   Should SIP require an IDENTIFY message? (reflector messages) [Frazier]

Continuing a lengthy electronic mail discussion, Giles Frazier presented his
concerns about the SCSI-3 change that reserves the LUN field in the CDB
combined with older host software that uses the CDB LUN field and does not
send IDENTIFY messages.  Gary Stephens noted that the current definitions
result from a planned (announced) progression away from SCSI-1 to universal
usage of the IDENTIFY message.  Gary noted that the initial definition of
this change was made (and announced) several years ago.

The working group largely disapproved of the proposal.  Comments included;
"A bus with a broken attention line will not work, irrespective of LUN
handling,"  "The proposed change breaks all attempts to reclaim the CDB LUN
field."  In a straw poll, no one favored any changes to any of the applicable
current draft standards.

5.5   Request Transfer Parameters message (reflector message) [Porter]

Gary Porter said that he is withdrawing the proposal as he has found a less
obtrusive work around.

6.    Command Set Topics

6.1   Reserve & Release in SPC (94-106r2) [Weber]

Ralph Weber presented the latest revision of his proposal for incorporating
the RESERVE and RELEASE commands in the SPC and handle 64-bit LUN values. 
There was little comment on the proposal.  Gary Porter moved that 94-106r2
be incorporated in the SPC.  Charles Monia seconded the motion.  The motion
passed 6:0.

After the discussion closed, Gerry Houlder produced a few, mostly editorial,
comments.  The most significant concened allowed WRITE BUFFER commands in the
presence of extent reservations.  Gerry noted that WRITE BUFFER now is used
mostly for download microcode operations.  Gerry felt that microcode loads
should be blocked by extent reservations.  Jim McGrath and a majority of the
working group agreed with Gerry.  Ralph agreed to attempt to resolve these
issues at the Plenary.

6.2   PORT STATUS Operation Code (94-176r0) [Weber]

Ralph presented a proposal that the PORT STATUS command (from
X3T9.2/93-041r2) have its operation code changed from 11h to 1Fh.  Ralph
noted that 1Fh is the last operation code for a 6-byte CDB.  After a short
discussion, Erich Oetting moved that the PORT STATUS command operation code
changed be from 11h to 1Fh.  Ted Lappin seconded the motion.  The motion
passed 12:0. 

6.3   SCSI-3 INQUIRY Command (94-079r1) [McGrath]

Jim McGrath reviewed his proposal for the addition of version compliance data
to the INQUIRY command.  Jim described the need for compliance data that
extends beyond the CDBs (see the agenda discussion for document 94-178r0). 
There followed a discussion of the possible methods for communicating the
version data.  Jim was seeking input about how best to revise his proposal.

John Lohmeyer asked for a straw poll about whether the proposal represents
a valid direction.  Ultimately, several questions were asked and voted on in
a straw poll format.  Jim asked if SCSI-3 should have any more interconnect
data in the Standard INQUIRY data.  The straw poll disapproved the question
1:21.  Should the mode pages contain interconnect-specific data?  The straw
poll split on this question 10:9.  Some people stated that they felt the
right way to include interconnect-specific information is to have separate
mode pages for each interconnect.

6.4   Data Recovery on Deferred Errors (94-067r2) [Houlder]

Gerry announced that he was withdrawing the proposal.  The meeting broke into
a sustained moment of silent pandemonium.

6.5   FORMAT MEDIUM Command for SSC (94-146r3) [Cummings]

Ken presented his revised proposal for applying the FORMAT MEDIUM command to
tapes.  There was some discussion of the details of the proposal.  Erich
Oetting moved that the working group recommend addoption of 94-146r3.  Ted
Lappin seconded the motion.  The motion was approved 17:0.

6.6   Enhanced READ BUFFER command (94-128) [Lappin]

Ted offered to withdraw his proposal.  His offer met with no opposition.

6.7   Enhanced Partition Mode Pages for SSC (94-152r0) [Lappin]

Ted presented a proposal for modifying the tape partitioning mode pages based
on his own insights and the recent SCSI-2 Sequential-access TIB.  Ted
described the specifics of his proposal in detail.  A straw poll favored the
proposal 7:0.

6.8   SCSI Queuing Data Integrity Problem? (reflector messages) [Sprenkle]

In the absence of Todd Sprenkle, Larry asked if anyone present thought the
problem represented a real issue.  Bob Snively said that he thought the issue
was indeed serious.  A reading of the electronic mail showed that the problem
was a SCSI-2 issue.  George Penokie said that ACA solves the problem in
SCSI-3.  The group then discussed several ways to resolve the problem in
SCSI-2.  No action was necessary or taken.

6.9   QErr bit and Multi-Initiator (reflector messages) [Binford]

In the absence of Charles Binford, George described the problem as being a
desire to remove one initiator's queue entries after a CHECK CONDITION
without removing all queued entries.  George said that the problem is solved
by ACA.

6.10  TB, DTE, and PER bit interaction (reflector messages) [McGrath]

Jim McGrath noted that he was satisfied with the comments that he had
received in electronic mail.  Jim felt that no further discussion was
necessary.  However, Jim may make a proposal to the block commands editor.

6.11  SPC Rev. 2 review [Weber]

Ralph Weber conducted a short review of the SPC revision 2.  Gene Milligan
noted that log page code 8 is missing from table 60.  There were no other

6.12  Proposal for TEST SUPPORT command (94-178) [Weber]

Ralph Weber presented proposal that gives the initiator a way to determine
what CDBs are supported and how fields within those CDBs and their parameter
data are evaluated by the target.  The target memory requirements resulting
|from the proposal were discussed.  The working group strongly suggested that
parameter data be dropped from the proposal.  Doing that will reduce the
memory requirements.  Also, even Ralph was not sure that the more complex
parameter lists can be properly described by the bit mask format response
data defined in the proposal.

Gene Milligan questioned what action is required from a target when the
tested operation code is one that it does not support.  Ralph described his
intentions.  Gene suggested that such information should appear in the

John Lohmeyer suggested that the ECMA version field be changed to reserved
since ECMA withdrew their SCSI standard, and that the ISO version and ANSI-
approved version fields be expanded.  Ed Gardner objected on the grounds that
SCSI-8 was a concept too horrible to allow.  Ralph agreed to change the ECMA
version field to reserved.

A series of straw polls were taken.  "Should this capability exist in the
SCSI-3 standard?" was approved 12:6.  "Should this capability be mandatory
for all SCSI devices?" was disapproved 3:13.  "Should this capability be part
of the INQUIRY command (not a separate command)?" was approved 11:8.

Ralph agreed to draft a new document describing the capability as a sub-
function of the INQUIRY command and incorporating most of the other
suggestions made by the working group.

7.    Other Topics

7.1   Japanese Comments on CD 9316-1 (SCSI-2) [Lamers]

Larry Lamers described comments received from Japanese reviewers of the SCSI-
2 standard.  The comments can be found in document 94-143.  Larry and John
expected that most of the comments would be accepted as editorial.  Some of
the comments concerned rounding of metric conversions on dimensions in the
connector drawings.  John Lohmeyer said most of these comments have been
incorporated in revision 13 of SPI.

7.2   TIB on SCSI-2 Logging Operations (94-168r0) [Penokie]

George Penokie stated that no changes had been made on the Logging Operations
TIB.  Gene Milligan made a few specific comments about needed corrections in
the current TIB.

7.3   TIB on SCSI-2 Sequential Access Partition Management (94-169r0)

John Lohmeyer described the forwarding process for a TIB.  He asked Ted
Lappin if he was comfortable with forwarding the TIB at the Thursday Plenary. 
Jim McGrath proposed using a letter ballot, to encourage a wider reading of
the document.

7.4   FCP Again [Milligan]

Gene Milligan presented proposed wording for a note to be added to FCP.  The
note attempts to warn readers about pending changes resulting from work on
the FCP during the comments resolution process.  The working group
unanimously recommended addition of the following text to clause

   Note:  X3T10 plans to consider recommendations from industry groups and
   other contributors resulting from early implementations and evaluation of
   FCP (e.g. a definition of the Abort Task Set, Clear Task Set, and Target
   Reset functions, in FCP, which may eliminated associated recovery abort
   functions generated by the target) is a future version of FCP.

8.    Meeting Schedule

The next working group meetings will be the week of November 7-11, 1994 at
the Hyatt Regency Suites (619-322-9000) in Palm Springs, CA hosted by Western
Digital.  The room rates are $105.00 (includes tax and parking).  The
reservation deadline for these rates is October 17, 1994.  The group name is
Western Digital.  The host contact is Jeff Stai at: 714-932-7644, FAX: 714-
932-6496, or EMAIL: stai at dt.wdc.com.

9.    Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday September 14, 1994.

John Lohmeyer                      E-Mail:  John.Lohmeyer at FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
NCR Microelectronics                Voice:  719-573-3362
1635 Aeroplaza Dr.                    Fax:  719-597-8225
Colo Spgs, CO 80916              SCSI BBS:  719-574-0424 300--14400 baud

More information about the T10 mailing list