Comments on 96-249r0

Tue Oct 29 06:57:15 PST 1996

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at, posted by:

I have reviewed the SES comments resolution document (96-249r0).

Please consider the following changes to 96-249.

SY.58 and SY.276:

I would like to see a resolution for these comments more along the lines
of the resolutions for comments SY.34 and SE.27.  Specifically, I like
the SE.27 wording (my paraphrasing added in curly brackets), "If the 
enclosure contains an 8-byte FP-PH name identifier field {then it shall 
be used here}."


Several editorial corrections are required.

"4.1.62 Timed Disconnect Polling" should be " Timed Disconnect 

In the first sentence in, I would prefer that "... using the
enclosure services management page." be changed to "... using the
enclosure services management mode page."

In the first sentence in, "... the device may indicate invalid
operations, ..." should be "... the device server may indicate invalid
operations, ..."


It is not clear from the current response whether the problem raised by
the comment will be addressed.  My concern is as follows.  SES may say
either, "... the behavior is defined in {clause reference} ..."  or 
"... the behavior is vendor specific ..."  To me, it is unacceptable to
say, "... the behavior is specific to the element ..."  Such a statement
provides no indication regarding where the definition of the behavior 
can be found, or even if a definition of the behavior can be found in SES.

If the intended response to SY.174 addresses this issue, my apologies for
beating a dead horse.


The current response is at least as faulty as the problem it intends to
fix; quoting the current response: "The report bit is set to indicate the 
enclosure services controller electronics described by this element status 
field is the active enclosure services processor for the sub-enclosure."

1) What is the definition of "active enclosure services processor"?  Is
it intended that a definition of this term be added to the glossary ... to
cover this single usage of the term?

2) Surely, it is the intent of SES that the REPORT bit be set only in the
ELEMENT STATUS field for the primary sub-enclosure.  If the REPORT bit is
set in the ELEMENT STATUS field for any (or every) sub-enclosure, then the
REPORT bit will be set several times in some status pages.  It will be
very difficult for an application client to determine path information if
many REPORT bits are set in a single status page.

3) Several field names are not upper cased.  I note this just to be sure
that they get small caps in the final SES document.

Based on the wording that was accepted in SY.249, I propose the following
rewrite of the sentence in question: "The REPORT bit is set to indicate
the enclosure service controller electronics described by this ELEMENT
STATUS field contains the enclosure services processor that transmitted
the status page to the application client."

Also, I am awaiting a response from a colleague regarding whether Symbios
will accept the resolution for SY.165.

In addition to these issues, I have the following suggestions for 
corrections or enhancements to the content of 96-249.


The comment presentation ends without any type of punctuation.  Due to
changes in my laptop hardware, I am unable to check the contents of the
original comment.  However, I doubt that the original comment ended
without benefit of punctuation.


The proposed action references comment SU.21.  SU.21 does not concern
table 1 and thus does not address the Symbios comment.  I suspect that
"Accepted" should have been cut&pasted at this site, instead of the
proposed action from the previous comment.


I assume that, as with SY.144, the second alternative has been accepted.


The proposed action references SU.24.  I believe that the reference
should be to SU.25.


In the proposed action, change "/accepted." to "Accepted."



cc: SCSI Reflector
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at

More information about the T10 mailing list