Draft Minutes of SPI-2 Working Group - 3/10/97

John Lohmeyer John.Lohmeyer at symbios.com
Thu Mar 20 12:20:23 PST 1997

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <John.Lohmeyer at Symbios.com>

I do not recall an agreement to limit the Apr 18th meeting to only Ultra3
discussions.  But I may have missed that discussion.  The plenary meeting
schedule slide that we voted on labeled the Apr 18th meeting as a SPI-2
meeting with no specific limitations.  I think an Ultra3 limitation would
waste the availability of some valuable resources, particularly on such
questions as how Figure 24 should be (or should not be) modified.  I do not
propose that we take a final action on the figure in April, just that we be
allowed to review the figure with the experts that I expect to be present
(and quite possibly not present in May).

The point about the Adaptec data being essentially the same as the data we
reviewed last year is made in agenda item 10.  Does it really need to be
repeated in agenda item 9?


PS: I would agree that 'agreement' is a word that should be used sparingly
regarding this topic.  ;-) 

At 12:25 AM 3/20/97, Gene Milligan wrote:
>>8.    Proposed clarification to Fig. 24 [Ham]
>>Bill Ham said that his data suggest that figure 24 should not be changed.
>>Bill requested that this issue be dropped from the agenda.  John Lohmeyer
>>expressed concern that an inconsistency exists if the figure is not changed.
>>John and Bill discussed changes that should and should not be made to the
>>figure.  The group agreed to review the figure again at the next meeting,
>>after everybody has a chance to review the current proposed figure with
> This should be clarified to refer to the May meeting, not the next meeting.
>>9.    Issues with LVD [Harris]
>>Norm Harris began his presentation with a review of the development of LVD
>>SCSI.  The conclusion of Norm's presentation was that there are no
>>demonstrable problems with LVD SCSI at 40 mega-transfers per second.
>>the same signaling technology cannot be run at faster transfer speeds,
say 80
>>mega-transfers per second, without some changes to signaling technology,
>>device count, or maximum cable length.
> This omits the key observation of many of the attendees including myself
>Bill Ham that this was a re-affirmation of the data reviewed and generally 
>agreed to last year.
>>The group agreed to consider the proposals in more detail during a SPI-2 
>meeting scheduled for > April 18th in San Jose, CA.
> I certainly do not think there was any such agreement.  I know  I
>objected to the meeting addressing SPI-2 proposals. I don't think any votes 
>were taken and the minutes do not note any votes being taken. I recall that 
>there was agreement that the meeting would only address test results and 
>probably proposals for Ultra 3. Had there been a reversal of this
agreement in 
>the plenary I would have objected. 
> Please note that item 15 of the minutes conforms my recollection.
John Lohmeyer                 E-Mail: john.lohmeyer at symbios.com
Symbios Logic Inc.             Voice: 719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: 719-533-7036
Colo Spgs, CO 80907-3444    SCSI BBS: 719-533-7950 300--28800 baud

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

More information about the T10 mailing list