Re 3: CA_ACA Proposal 97-225r0.DOC

Gene Milligan Gene_Milligan at
Tue Sep 2 14:46:48 PDT 1997

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* Gene Milligan <Gene_Milligan at>
Regarding Coughlans second set of comments:

Deferred Errors: Actually the proposal only included editorial corrections to 
account for previously accepted but not documented proposals. 

<<the device server has realized that the _data_ that is being
referenced by one initiator is the subject of a deferred error that
is to be returned to another initiator. This should result in a check
condition, because there is (potentially) something wrong with the data.>> 

 It does result in a check condition. Any faults with the definition are 
independent of the CA_ACA proposal but I have no objection to further 
discussion of this part of SPC.

<< It needs to be made clear that the SCSI-2 extended auto contingent 
allegiance is obsolete (illegal?) in SCSI-3. >> 

 OK. How about "1. The SCSI-2 contingent allegiance condition has been 
augmented and the extended auto contingent allegiance condition has been 
replaced in SCSI-3 by auto contingent allegiance in conjunction with the NACA 

<<I think it is important, however, for SCSI-3 to explicit define the
behavior of CA, in SCSI-3 terms, rather than the current tenuous
references to the "SCSI-2 rules for CA".>>

 I have attempted in the areas where they are different to explicitly include 
the difference. I think this was what resulted in the objection to Deffered 
Errors which are really not being changed by the meat of the CA-ACA proposal. I 
agree with the concept of not having to refer to SCSI-2 for any of the 


* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at

More information about the T10 mailing list