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
                                                 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


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)
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 
  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 

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
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
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.
Mr. Duncan Penman      O  IIX Consulting            penman at netcom.com
Ms. Jeanne T. Martin   O  Lawrence Livermore Nat'l  jtm at llnl.gov
Mr. Lansing Sloan      O  Lawrence Livermore Nat'l  ljsloan at llnl.gov
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
Mr. Gerald Houlder     A  Seagate Technology        Gerry_Houlder at notes.seaga
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
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
Mr. Tak Asami          A  Western Digital           asami at dt.wdc.com
Mr. Tom Hanan          A# Western Digital           hanan_t at a1.wdc.com
Mr. Devon Worrell      A# Western Digital           worrell at dt.wdc.com
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 

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 

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-

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 

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 

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) 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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