Minutes of X3T10 SCSI Working Group Jan. 10-11, 1995
Lohmeyer, John
JLOHMEYE at cosmpdaero.ftcollinsco.ncr.com
Mon Jan 16 15:30:00 PST 1995
[[ 95-129R0.TXT : 3930 in 95-129R0.TXT ]]
--
John Lohmeyer E-Mail: john.lohmeyer at hmpd.com
NCR Microelectronics Voice: 719-573-3362
1635 Aeroplaza Dr. Fax: 719-573-3037
Colo Spgs, CO 80916 SCSI BBS: 719-574-0424 300--14400 baud
Accredited Standards Committee*
X3, Information Technology
Doc. No.: X3T10/95-129r0
Date: January 16, 1995
Project:
Ref. Doc.:
Reply to: John Lohmeyer
To: Membership of X3T10
From: Ralph Weber, Secretary X3T10
John Lohmeyer, Chair X3T10
Subject: Minutes of X3T10 SCSI Working Group Meeting
Lake Tahoe, NV -- January 10-11, 1995
Agenda
1. Opening Remarks
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Attendance and Membership
4. Physical Topics
4.1 Next-Generation SPI Proposals [Aloisi, Ham, Harris, Lohmeyer, Penman]
4.2 3.3 Volt SCSI (94-164r2) [Aloisi]
4.3 Fast-20 Timing Considerations [Asami]
4.4 Review of SCSI-3 Fast-20 Letter Ballot Comments
4.5 Bus transition timing [Snively]
5. Protocol Topics
5.1 Review of Generic Packetized Protocol (GPP) Letter Ballot Comments
5.2 CA and ACA Presentation (95-110r0) [Monia]
5.3 Addressability of TARGET RESET task management function (94-236r0)
[Snively]
6. Command Set Topics
6.1 Proposed INQUIRY Command Enhancements (94-188r7) [Weber]
6.2 Exception Handling Selection Mode Page (94-190r3) [Penokie]
6.3 Partition Mode Pages for Tape (94-152r1) [Lappin]
6.4 Command Extensions for PCMCIA (94-203) [Joslin]
6.5 Multiple Port Operations (94-233) [Snively]
6.6 Attached Medium Changer Model (95-103r0) [Weber]
6.7 Conflict Between Read Long and the Read-write Error Recovery Page
[Milligan]
6.8 SPC Rev 4 Comments (95-106r0) [Penokie]
6.9 Distributed SCSI (95-112r0) [Sloan]
6.10 Determining the status of an immediate command (94-244r0) [Lappin]
7. Other Topics
7.1 Plug and Play SCSI Industry Specification {Tuesday 4:00 p -- ??}
7.2 ANSI/AIIM MS59 Log Pages (94-113r2) [Podio] {Wednesday am}
7.3 CAM-2 CCBs and General CAM-2 Rules
8. Meeting Schedule
9. Adjournment
Results of Meeting
1. Opening Remarks
John Lohmeyer, the X3T10 Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.,
Tuesday January 10, 1995. He thanked Steve Finch of Silicon Systems for
arranging and hosting the meeting.
As is customary, the people attending introduced themselves and a copy of the
attendance list was circulated. Copies of the draft agenda and general
information on X3T10 were made available to those attending.
2. Approval of Agenda
The draft agenda was approved with the addition of 4.5 (Bus transition timing)
and 6.10 (Determining the status of an immediate command).
3. 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 organization directly and materially affected by X3T10's scope of
work.
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. Carl Booth O Amphenol/Spectra-Strip
Mr. Ron Roberts A Apple Computer rkroberts at aol.com
Mr. Dennis R. Haynes P Burr-Brown Corp. haynes_dennis at bbrown.com
Mr. Joe Stoupa A Burr-Brown Corp. Stoupa_Joe at bbrown.com
Mr. Clifford E. Strang P BusLogic skip at buslogic.com
Jr.
Mr. Bob Gannon O C&M Corp. bobg848740 at aol.com
Mr. Ian Morrell P Circuit Assembly Corp. crctassmbl at aol.com
Mr. Nicos Syrimis A Cirrus Logic Inc. nicos at cirrus.com
Mr. Peter Johansson P Congruent Software, Inc. pjohansson at aol.com
Mr. Michael Alexenko A# Conner Peripherals Mike.Alexenko at conner.com
Mr. Louis Grantham P Dallas Semiconductor grantham at dalsemi.com
Mr. Michael Smith A Dallas Semiconductor msmith at dalsemi.com
Mr. Charles Monia P Digital Equipment Corp. monia at shr.dec.com
Dr. William Ham A# Digital Equipment Corp. ham at subsys.enet.dec.com
Mr. William Dallas A# Digital Equipment Corp. dallas at wasted.enet.dec.com
Mr. Kenneth J. Hallam A ENDL 3450626 at mcimail.com
Mr. Ralph O. Weber A# ENDL Associate roweber at acm.com
Mr. Edward Lappin P Exabyte Corp. tedl at exabyte.com
Mr. Gary R. Stephens P FSI Consulting Services 6363897 at mcimail.com
Mr. Mike Chenery A# Fujitsu mchennery at fcpa.fujitsu.com
Mr. J. R. Sims V Hewlett Packard Co. robsims at depeche.lvld.hp.com
Mr. Zane Daggett V Hitachi Cable 74354.2576 at compuserve.com
Manchester,Inc
Ms. Nancy Cheng V Hitachi Computer Products n_cheng at hitachi.com
Mr. John Lohmeyer O HMPD john.lohmeyer at hmpd.com
Mr. George Penokie P IBM Corp. gop at rchvmp3.vnet.ibm.com
Mr. Giles Frazier O IBM Corp. gfrazier at ausvm6.vnet.ibm.
com
Mr. Duncan Penman O IIX Consulting penman at netcom.com
Ms. Jeanne T. Martin O Lawrence Livermore Nat'l jtm at llnl.gov
Lab
Mr. Lansing Sloan O Lawrence Livermore Nat'l ljsloan at llnl.gov
Lab
Mr. Dean Wallace P Linfinity Micro
Mr. Robert Bellino P Madison Cable Corp.
Mr. Pete McLean P Maxtor Corp. pete_mclean at maxtor.com
Mr. Bob Masterson P Methode Electronics, Inc. rwmast at aol.com
Mr. Joe Dambach P Molex Inc.
Mr. Jay Neer A Molex Inc. jneer at usa.molex.com
Mr. Peter Brown P Oak Technology, Inc. brown at oaktech.com
Mr. Doug Prins A# QLogic Corp. d_prins at qlc.com
Mr. James McGrath P Quantum Corp. JMCGRATH at QNTM.COM
Mr. Edward A. Gardner A Quantum Corp. gardner at acm.org
Mr. Keith Staub V Quantum Corp. kstaub at tdh.qntm.com
Mr. Peter VanBeckum V Samsung Semiconductor syed at sam.com
Mr. Kazushige Yoshino V Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Mr. Gene Milligan P Seagate Technology Gene_Milligan at notes.seaga
te.com
Mr. Gerald Houlder A Seagate Technology Gerry_Houlder at notes.seaga
te.com
Mr. Erich Oetting P Storage Technology Corp. Erich_Oetting at Stortek.com
Mr. Roger Cummings A Storage Technology Corp. Roger_Cummings at Stortek.com
Mr. Robert N. Snively P Sun Microsystems Computer bob.snively at eng.sun.com
Co
Mr. Patrick Mercer P SyQuest Technology Corp. patrick.mercer at syquest.com
Mr. John Moy P Tandem Computers moy_john at tandem.com
Mr. Bill Boyd O Texas Instruments bboy%mimi at magic.itg.ti.com
Mr. Paul D. Aloisi P Unitrode Integrated Aloisi at uicc.com
Circuits
Mr. Tak Asami A Western Digital asami at dt.wdc.com
Corporation
Mr. Tom Hanan A# Western Digital hanan_t at a1.wdc.com
Corporation
Mr. Devon Worrell A# Western Digital worrell at dt.wdc.com
Corporation
Mr. Dennis P. Moore P Zadian Technologies dmoore at netcom.com
57 People Present
Status Key: P - Principal
A,A# - Alternate
O - Observer
L - Liaison
V - Visitor
4. Physical Topics
4.1 Next-Generation SPI Proposals [Aloisi, Ham, Harris, Lohmeyer, Penman]
John Lohmeyer reviewed the work performed at the November Working Group
meeting. At that meeting, a list of interesting topics in the SCSI parallel
bus area was created and reviewed. Several committee members agreed to write
proposals regarding specific items on the list.
Paul Aloisi started the next-generation presentations with a discussion 3.3
volt TERMPWR. Paul's discussion was based on X3T10/94-164r2. The issues are
important for low-voltage systems, both battery and non-battery environments.
Paul noted that 2.7 volt terminators are required and a minimum single-ended
VDC of 2.8 (as opposed to the 2.8 and 2.9 values shown in his document).
Gene Milligan questioned the relationship between X3T10 battery electrical
issues and similar work in the PCMCIA arena. John suggested that X3T10 should
be helping the PCMCIA group as they are focusing on connector issues.
Bill Ham noted that many of the concepts being presented apply to systems
other than 3.3 volt configurations. He suggested that smaller wire gauge
systems also could benefit. Paul agreed but noted that his charter was for
3.3 volt systems.
Next, Paul presented document 94-229r1, SCSI-3 SPI Low Power. Much of the
discussion concerned what information should appear in a standard. Some of
those present thought that Paul's material over emphasized engineering
details.
Gene Milligan noted that a key issue in the low power area is a sleep mode for
the interface. This is different from the drive sleep mode already approved
in document X3T9.2/91-014R6. Gene noted that equivalent effort already is in
progress in PCMCIA.
Discussion turned to the need for a separate meeting on future SPI low-voltage
work. After reviewing the available dates, the group selected 17 February in
a straw poll. George Penokie suggested that the issue should be discussed
again at the Plenary. Gene Milligan suggested that preliminary discussions
should occur on the Internet. Gene thought that the Internet discussion might
eliminate the need for a meeting. John disagreed, saying that he has seen
non-controversial Internet discussions become very controversial at subsequent
meetings.
Next, Paul presented 94-240r1, Hot Swap Issues. Paul indicated that this
material is not as ready for discussion as the other topics. Paul listed the
issues with hot-swap. Bob Snively said that some of the written material is
not applicable to generic SCSI.
Bill Ham presented his review of the action items. Bill's list started with
overhead reduction for performance reasons. Bill said that faster data phase
speeds will be swamped by overhead from the other bus phases. Bill's other
concerns were physical size and several system issues. Bill's system issues
included TermPwr distribution, longer busses (incident wave switching,
attenuation, and skew), shield effectiveness, bus media (cables, backplanes,
and propagation speed), low-power differential, and bus sleep modes.
Jim McGrath proposed the following additions to Bill Ham's list: 32-bit bus
width support, longer cable plant (using SCSI repeaters), lower device
capacitance (take device off the bus when it's not selected). Jim's SCSI
repeater configuration generated substantial discussion.
4.2 3.3 Volt SCSI (94-164r2) [Aloisi]
This item was discussed as part of the previous agenda topic.
4.3 Fast-20 Timing Considerations [Asami]
Tak Asami presented 95-109r0, which describes a problem with the timing
descriptions in the Fast-20 document. Tak indicated that the Fast-20 document
can confuse someone reading it to a point where they implement something that
is faster than Fast-20. After some discussion, the group decided that a
combination of the SPI document and the Fast-20 document already covers Tak's
comment. However, many of those present felt that the proposal enhances Fast-
20.
It was noted that the Fast-20 letter ballot resulted in numerous comments, of
which this is only one. Therefore, the Fast-20 document should be in a
position to accept this change. The group also agreed that the change is
fundamentally editorial.
Concerns were raised about the practice of copying SPI material to the Fast-20
document (in order to make the Fast-20 document clear). John asked that
anyone opposed accepting Tak's comment describe their opposition. Jim McGrath
asked that the response to the letter ballot comment state that the described
problem does not really exist. Gene Milligan asked that the working group
recommend to the Plenary that the response to the Western Digital comment say
that the described behavior is not allowed in SCSI, but that X3T10 will add
the proposed text, in the interest of clarifying the Fast-20
document.
4.4 Review of SCSI-3 Fast-20 Letter Ballot Comments
John Lohmeyer presented the results of the Fast-20 forwarding letter ballot.
The forwarding to first public review passed 50:2:0:4. AMD, Compaq,
Interphase, and NEC failed to return their ballots.
IBM registered a comment requesting that the glitch filters be restored on the
REQ/REQQ and ACK/ACKQ lines. Gary Stephens said that the current wording
requires the filters because SPI requires the filters and Fast-20 contains no
statement eliminating the filters. George Penokie describes IBM's concern
that the current wording is unclear (based on knowledge of the Fast-20
authors' intent). In addition, IBM is concerned with interoperation in old
(slow) systems that depend on the glitch filter for proper operation.
Bill Ham noted that the shorter bus lengths required by Fast-20 gain no
benefits from the glitch filters. The group began a discussion of how the
glitch filters can be managed so that the filters are present when the device
is operating a speeds slower than the Fast-20 rules. Both the real-world
operating mechanics and the standards wording were discussed. George stated
that IBM would change its vote if a statement were added clarifying the usage
of glitch filters in Fast-20 and in less-than-Fast-20 operation. It was noted
that glitch filters are required in synchronous less-than-Fast-20 and optional
in Fast-20 operation.
John announced that a Fast-20 editing meeting is being proposed for mid-
February in the San Jose area. This meeting would be co-located with the SPI
futures meeting discussed earlier in this meeting. [Chair's note: George
Penokie, Larry Lamers, and John Lohmeyer met later in the week and resolved
most of the editing issues intended for this meeting. The proposed meeting
probably will not be needed.]
Next the group turned to the Gene Milligan's (Seagate) comments. Gene wrote
29 comments. The comments were discussed individually. Many of the comments
were accepted, as is. Other comments were accepted with revisions that were
acceptable to the group. Gene's comment 15 was rejected. Comment 12 was
accepted in principle, but not necessarily for inclusion in the SPI. Comments
2, 8, and 11 were accepted with some wording revisions. All other comments
were accepted.
Norm Harris presented the Adaptec position on Fast-20 in mixed bus width
environments. Adaptec voted "yes with comment" on the Fast-20 letter ballot.
Adaptec believe that mixed bus width environments are viable and worthwhile
for Fast-20 systems. Norm presented some skew data showing that mixed bus
width environments have acceptable characteristics.
John asked if all the technical experts agreed that Norm's data supports mixed
bus width operation. Gene Milligan questioned the contents of the data.
Otherwise, everybody (including Gene) agreed that mixed bus width operation is
desirable and possible. Norm proposed that the current wording prohibiting
mixed bus width operation be replaced with wording that specifically allows
mixed bus width operation. Several members suggested that the current wording
be deleted, and that Fast-20 be silent on mixed bus width operation. Norm
agreed that making Fast-20 silent on mixed bus width operation will be
acceptable to Adaptec.
John noted that the Fast-20 requirement for even spacing seems to apply to all
configurations. However, the intent is that even spacing apply to the 3m bus
length case. Resolution of the second Adaptec comment was to make the even
spacing requirement a recommendation that is especially applicable to 3m bus
length systems.
It was noted that Gary Stephens is reviewing the Fast-20 document, finding
many editorial problems, and will be discussing his findings with Larry
Lamers, the Fast-20 technical editor.
4.5 Bus transition timing [Snively]
Bob Snively asked the group about delays involved in switching the data bus
direction. He was informed that the required delay is at least the sum of the
data release delay and the bus settle delay. Bob noted that he had found this
information in SCSI-2, but not SCSI-3. He was pointed to the definition in
the SCSI-3 Parallel Interface.
5. Protocol Topics
5.1 Review of Generic Packetized Protocol (GPP) Letter Ballot Comments
Gary Stephens reviewed the Gene Milligan (Seagate) comments on his yes letter
ballot vote on forwarding of the GPP Technical Report to public review. Gary
and Gene discussed the status of normative references in a Technical Report.
Gary agreed with Gene that normative references cannot appear in a technical
report. Gene's comment 8 was rejected due to the amount of document
restructuring required. Gary agreed to add an explanatory note about the
Annex pairs. Comment 9 was accepted with the modification that `unreliable'
is changed to `unconfirmed'. Gene Milligan accepted all the responses to his
comments.
John announced that the letter ballot vote on GPP forwarding passed 51:0:0:5.
John noted that the majority of the work on GPP will be done before the
Plenary meeting. If the Plenary approves the letter ballot responses, then
GPP will have passed most of the hurdles on the way to ANSI publication as a
technical report.
5.2 CA and ACA Presentation (95-110r0) [Monia]
Charles Monia presented document 95-110r0, Comparison of Contingent Allegiance
and Auto Contingent Allegiance. This document was prepared in response to a
request from the November 1994 Plenary meeting. A few minor corrections were
made. Charles agreed to provide a revised document for the mailing.
Then, the group debated the details and usage of ECA and ACA. The group also
debated a request that sense data be preserved after the receipt of the first
ACA command. The latter issue is based on concerns raised in the Fiber
Channel - Arbitrated Loop working group.
5.3 Addressability of TARGET RESET task management function (94-236r0)
[Snively]
Bob Snively presented his request for a Logical Unit Reset task management
function. He reviewed the history that produced this specific proposal.
There was a lengthy discussion of the BUS DEVICE RESET message on the parallel
bus. Also, Bob verified that use of a unique task management function is the
preferred mechanism for the SAM. Resetting multi-port targets also was
discussed at length.
Bob was instructed to provide two task management functions (target reset and
logical unit reset) for inclusion in the SAM. He also was instructed to
redefine the BUS DEVICE RESET as the basis for supporting the logical unit
reset on the parallel bus. For FCP, Bob plans to do an "address target" reset
function.
6. Command Set Topics
6.1 Proposed INQUIRY Command Enhancements (94-188r7) [Weber]
Ralph Weber mumbled his way through a review of the INQUIRY Command
Enhancements proposal. Ed Gardner noted that the proposal is not clear
regarding the CDB Usage Data definition for reserved fields. Ed proposed that
tested reserved field bits should be shown as one bits in the CDB Usage Data.
George Penokie and Ralph felt that all reserved field bits should be shown as
zero bits, regardless of whether those bits are tested. Most of the group
agreed that reserved field bits should be shown as zeros.
Ted Lappin and Ed Gardner noted that the description of whole or partial field
usage was ambiguous. A device could report using three out of four bytes in a
field and satisfy the proposal. Ralph stated his intention to disallow this.
Ted and Ed stated that Ralph's intention must be clarified in the proposal.
Ralph agreed to revise the proposal in time for the next mailing. The revised
proposal will be considered at the March X3T10 meetings.
6.2 Exception Handling Selection Mode Page (94-190r3) [Penokie]
George Penokie presented revision 3 of his proposal for controlling the
reporting of asynchronous events. He noted that Adaptec has identified a few
grammatical errors. All such errors will be corrected in the next proposal
revision. The working group recommended some corrections in wording in table
2 of the proposal.
At Ed Gardner's suggesting, the proposal will be changed to affect the SPC and
apply to all device types. Since all the revisions were of a non-technical
nature, the working group recommended that the proposal, as revised, be
approved by the Plenary.
6.3 Partition Mode Pages for Tape (94-152r1) [Lappin]
Ted Lappin presented his proposal modifying the Medium partition mode page (1-
4) definitions. His proposal clarifies the functions (options) that the
application client is requesting. The proposal also adds gigabytes to the
PSUM field. Ted noted that many of the notes in revision 0 were converted to
standard test in revision 1. Ted proposed that 94-152 be remanded to the
SSC/SMC working group. There was no objection.
6.4 Command Extensions for PCMCIA (94-203) [Joslin]
Since this is the second working group at which no one was present to discuss
the proposal, John Lohmeyer proposed that the item be dropped from future
agendas. There was no objection to dropping this agenda item.
6.5 Multiple Port Operations (94-233) [Snively]
Bob presented his proposal for multiple port operations (94-233r1). He noted
that the changes are a few minor wording changes in the SPC, addition of a
Priority Reserve feature, and addition of a task management function in SAM.
Next, Bob reviewed the outstanding issues with the proposal.
Bob noted the issues with generic global identifiers. Bob suggested that the
RESET DEVICE OTHER PORT message should be kept, in the SIP. He said that the
PORT STATUS command is not as important as it was. Bill Dallas suggested that
a persistent reservation (with key) be added to the proposal. Bob and Bill
agreed to develop a specific proposal on this subject. The working group
discussed the concepts of persistent reserve.
Bob agreed to revise the proposal based on working group input and ongoing
work with Bill. Gerry Houlder agreed that, if all the dual port features
discussed cover the needs that the PORT STATUS command addresses, he will
agree to making the PORT STATUS command vendor unique and thus obsolete it.
6.6 Attached Medium Changer Model (95-103r0) [Weber]
Ralph Weber described a problem with reused operation codes that prevents CD-
ROM devices from using the MOVE MEDIUM and READ ELEMENT STATUS commands in the
attached medium changer model. Ralph proposed specific operation codes that
can be used for MOVE MEDIUM and READ ELEMENT STATUS. Ralph noted that the
proposed operation codes are assigned to array devices in the SCC.
Ed Gardner stated that existing tape products use the existing MOVE MEDIUM and
READ ELEMENT STATUS operation codes in the attached medium changer way. Ed
insisted that the existing X3T9.2/92-006r2 be allowed for existing products.
Erich Oetting suggested making the new operations codes the preferred ones for
future devices, but allowing the existing operation codes for existing stream
device products. Ralph agreed to revise the proposal as described by Erich.
After discussing the pros and cons of sharing operation codes with the array
device commands, a straw poll was taken. The working group unanimously
favored using operation codes that currently are unused (are unique) for the
MOVE MEDIUM and READ ELEMENT STATUS commands.
Ted Lappin suggested that MOVE MEDIUM and READ ELEMENT STATUS should be
allowed for line printer devices. Ralph agreed to make all the changes
requested by the working group, draft a new document, and deliver the revised
document for inclusion in the next mailing.
6.7 Conflict Between Read Long and the Read-write Error Recovery Page
[Milligan]
Gene Milligan reviewed the history of conflicting requirements between the
READ LONG command an the Read/Write Error Recovery mode page. In March 1994,
the working group decided that the CORRCT and DCR mode page bits cannot be set
during a READ LONG. If they are, the READ LONG shall be failed with an
ILLEGAL REQUEST status. Gene found more cases of conflicts between READ LONG
command an the Read/Write Error Recovery mode page. As a result, Gene
proposed four possible actions based on the new conflicts that have been
found.
Gene's four proposals were: 1) Obsolete the READ LONG command, 2) sanction ad
hoc behavior, 3) retract 3/94 and declare the two independent, 4) address all
the conflicts. Responses to Gene's email discussion of the four proposals
were as follows. A non-user of READ LONG suggested rigorously defining the
behavior. An engineering tool user favored ad hoc behavior. An adamant OS
user needed functional READ LONG and WRITE LONG commands.
By unanimous consent, the working group recommended adoption of proposal 3 to
the Plenary. Gene next discussed two ancillary issues. If the CORRCT is set
to don't correct, the status will be GOOD unless some non-data error is
encountered. Gene will draft a proposal that reflects the consensus of the
working group.
6.8 SPC Rev 4 Comments (95-106r0) [Penokie]
Ralph Weber reviewed and responded to the SPC comments provided by George
Penokie. George made 21 comments. Ralph accepted 15 comments. Comment 3 was
accepted provided Ralph send the revised wording to George and Bob Snively for
approval. Comments 1, 7, 8, 9, and 13 were rejected because they conflict
with previously approved documents. George was satisfied with the reasons for
rejecting comment 8. However, George maintained that the MOVE MEDIUM, READ
ELEMENT STATUS, and processor commands should not be in the SPC.
6.9 Distributed SCSI (95-112r0) [Sloan]
Lansing Sloan (from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) described the
storage interests of LLNL. He said that LLNL believes that SCSI network-
attached peripherals can enhance file and storage servers, particularly if
more capability is added to SCSI. Lansing described three ways for
peripheral-to-peripheral transfers: conventional READ/WRITE, current third-
party COPY, and data transfers with separated command paths.
The working group generally favored the READ/WRITE mechanisms, which expanded
the features in the RESERVE and RELEASE commands. Actually, the
RESERVE/RELEASE mechanism may fit very well with the persistent reserve
feature discussed earlier in the day. The COPY command option was mostly
rejected as too complex.
John suggested that a study effort should be setup when Lansing is ready.
Lansing agreed that the LLNL team is not fully ready yet. The advice received
today was very helpful to Lansing. He will return to the working group when
the new advice as been assimilated.
6.10 Determining the status of an immediate command (94-244r0) [Lappin]
Ted Lappin presented a proposal that would expand the cases in which the
status of an active immediate command can be determined. Ted's proposal
basically is an extension of the current "format in progress" capability. Bob
Snively raised concerns about multiple concurrent incomplete immediate
commands. The working group recommended that the revised proposal be approved
by the Plenary.
7. Other Topics
7.1 Plug and Play SCSI Industry Specification {Tuesday 4:00 p -- ??}
At Larry Lamers' request, the Plug and Play discussion was remanded to a
separate non-X3T10 ad hoc group (as opposed to within the context of the
Working Group meeting). In the absence of any objections, the Working Group
meeting was recessed and the ad hoc group convened to discuss Plug and Play.
For information on this meeting, please contact Steve Timm (Microsoft).
7.2 ANSI/AIIM MS59 Log Pages (94-113r2) [Podio] {Wednesday am}
Fernando Podio described the use of SCSI log page codes in the AIIM C21
committee's MS59 Standard. His presentation covered document 94-113r2. He
described the review of optical vendor specific log page code usage, by which
log page codes 39h and 3Ah were selected for use with SCSI- 2. He described
the process by which X3T10 assigned log page codes 09h and 0Ah for use with
SCSI-3. Log page code 39h/09h is used for a Media Error log page. Log page
code 3Ah/0Ah is used for the Clear Media Error log page.
Fernando also described the MS59 -specific usage of the Read/Write Error
Recovery and Verify Error Recovery mode pages. He also reported that the C21
is currently working to get the MS59 Standard in the applicable ISO document.
Fernando requested X3T10 coordination of C21 and X3T10 positions regarding
these log page and mode page usage. Gene Milligan suggested writing a letter
to SC25 to TC121 requesting support for the MS59 during ISO processing.
The group discussed the X3T10 documentation of the MS59 log page and mode page
usage. It was agreed that the log pages can be documented in the SPC and SBC
simply by noting that the 09h and 0Ah log page codes are defined by the AIIM
C21 MS59 Standard. The log page codes should be documented as being used only
by optical devices.
The mode page changes were more difficult because MS59 proposes extensions to
the existing Read/Write Error Recovery and Verify Error Recovery mode pages.
The best way to document these extensions was discussed. Duplicating the MS59
information in the SBC was rejected, due to the difficulties with keeping the
two standards documents synchronized. The accepted solution was to note the
existence of longer Read/Write Error Recovery and Verify Error Recovery mode
pages in the SBC. The structure diagrams for the Read/Write Error Recovery
and Verify Error Recovery mode pages would not be changed, but note text would
be added.
Fernando asked any interested persons to contact him at
fernando at pegasus.ncsl.nist.gov.
7.3 CAM-2 CCBs and General CAM-2 Rules
Bill Dallas described the progress in the CAM working group. The general
direction of CCB restructuring has been agreed. Bill also described a
proposed expansion of the XPT functions to make peripheral drivers more
portable between operating systems.
Gerry Houlder began a discussion of allowing both DATA IN and DATA OUT for a
single command. Currently, the CAM CCB does not permit this operational mode.
At a minimum, a second data pointer must be defined. There was some debate
about the historical and practical limits on both DATA IN and DATA OUT for a
single command.
Bill asked that the project be changed from CAM-2 to CAM-3. John said that a
title change can be made without revising the project proposal.
8. Meeting Schedule
The working group reviewed the March map for X3T10 meetings. The group
recommended that the policies and procedures meeting was not needed in March.
Moving the XOR meeting in to the general working group meeting was discussed,
but not recommended.
The next plenary meeting of X3T10 SCSI Working Group will be March 7-8, 1995,
in Newport Beach, CA, at the Hyatt Hotel (714-729-1234), hosted by QLogic.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. on Wednesday January 11, 1995.
*Operating under the procedures of The American National Standards Institute.
X3 Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005-3922
Email: x3sec at itic.nw.dc.us Telephone: 202-737-8888 FAX: 202-638-4922
More information about the T10
mailing list