Minutes of T10 Meeting #21 - May 8, 1997

Gene Milligan Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Thu May 15 09:39:54 PDT 1997

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene Milligan <Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com>
<<8.9   SCSI-3 Stream Commands (SSC) Status {Project 997-D} [Lappin]

In the absence of Ted Lappin, John Lohmeyer reported that numerous comments
have been received in response to the letter ballot vote on forwarding SSC to
first public review.  John said that review of the responses to the letter
ballot comments should occur on the SCSI Reflector and at the July meeting.>>

 I think the document number of the letter ballot comments and that it is on 
the ftp site should be included in the minutes. Alternatively perhaps the 
minutes should have just said "See 10.1" I also would like to remind the 
initiator of a thread on a particular comment to include what the comment was 
in the initial discussion message.

<<George Penokie reported that SCC has been finally published. >>

 This sounds like it was a protracted process. But my impression was that the 
publication went smoothly thanks to the diligence of George which we should 

<<8.13  SCSI Parallel Interface - 2 (SPI-2) {Project 1142-D} [Ham]

Bill Ham reported that the working group has been spending most of its energy
on the next generation of parallel SCSI (minutes in 97-175).  He noted that
work is continuing on specifying the single-ended termination.>>

 Since the LVD/multimode aspects of this project are quite stable, the thrust 
of this agenda item should transition to what has been euphemized as 
"integration work".

<<John also noted that Adaptec has brought to the committee's attention many
issues related to the next generation of parallel SCSI.  He described briefly
the effect of this work on the meeting schedule.>>

 The minutes on this item are either too vague or too expansive. The world has 
varying views on when a standard becomes a generation. Since the minutes 
included the comment I think it should be clarified as "many issues related to 
parallel SCSI transfer rates beyond 40 Mega transfers per second."

 Since a schedule for a future project (which has not been defined) has not 
been established, it seems premature to judge the impact on meeting schedules. 
It is not premature to assume that continued evolution parallel SCSI will be 

<<Editing    activity is continuing to develop documents <<<be>>> clause number 
and to
   incorporate as many items from SFF8090 as appropriate. The intent is to
have a  draft revision 1.0 by the July meeting.>>

 I presume this should be "by". If so does that mean that individual clauses 
are being developed in parallel, as separate documents to be merged later,  
that the group is marching through clauses in serial fashion, or that an 
outline of the clauses is being developed?  

<<Ralph Weber reported that he has not made any progress converting SPC to

 Would Word be quicker?

<<Gene Milligan moved that the motion concerning SCAM be <<<removed the table.>>
Mark Evans seconded the motion.  The motion to remove from the table passed

 This should be "removed from the table."

<< Larry Lamers will incorporate the pre-edit comments into
SPI Amendment #1 and John Lohmeyer will forwarded the revised SPI Amendment #1
to NCITS for management review.>>

 I think the analogous items elsewhere included what the resulting revision 
would be. This would be helpful. Ditto for SES.

<<12.2  T13 Liaison Report [Milligan]

Gene Milligan made an oral report to the committee and provided the following
electronic report::>>

 I did not provide an electronic report - only oral. What follows is not my 
oral report or my electronic report.

<<Devon Worrell, Gene Milligan, and Pete McLean discussed a mechanism whereby a
company might claim that patents need not be infringed to implement one
standard, but would need to be infringed to implement a required combination
of two standards.  Thus, a company could claim to comply with the ANSI policy,
but in fact, not comply.>>

 I did not discuss such a mechanism in the sense that such a mechanism is 
viable. I don't know if Pete did. Devon described his opinion that such a 
mechanism could result from layered standards. I don't think this is practical 
since the layers normatively require the other layers. What Devon has pointed 
out is that the phrasing of questions posed should be considered in the light 
of layered standards? As I reported in my oral report T13 had sent a letter to 
Oak and received a satisfactory answer vis a vis ATA/ATAPI-4 with a caution 
relating to the product implemented behind the ATA/ATAPI-4 standard. These 
letters resulted from response to the patent call in T13 meetings. Perhaps 
statements that Devon made should be considered a response to the patent call an
d an appropriate letter generated by T10.

<<A request for a meeting to discuss protocol proposals on 24 June in Irvine, CA
met with some opposition.  Consequently, a  straw poll was taken on whether to
have the meeting.  The straw poll (barely) passed 8:7:12.>>

 I thought that straw polls were indicators, not things that have pass fail 
requirements. After all pollsters can determine the outcome with very small 
percentage returns.

<<SCSI Protocol SG     June 24, 1997        Irvine, CA / Adaptec>>

 Larry Lamers indicated that this meeting would not occur unless the material 
to be discussed was distributed by 5/30/97. Should the meeting be noted as 

 In the future it would seem appropriate to have 14.1 as the first item so that 
the minutes reflect the working group dates after they are approved.

* 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