Results of Letter Ballot on Forwarding EPI to first public review

John Lohmeyer john.lohmeyer at symbios.com
Wed Aug 26 10:50:36 PDT 1998


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <john.lohmeyer at symbios.com>
*
100% voter turnout.  Congratulations T10!  -- John

                                                            T10/98-016r0
Voting Results on T10 Letter Ballot 98-014r0 on
Forwarding EPI to first public review

Organization                      Name                 S Vote Add'l Info
--------------------------------- -------------------- - ---- ----------
Adaptec, Inc.                     Larry Lamers         P Yes  
AMP, Inc.                         Chuck Brill          P Yes  
Amphenol Interconnect             Michael Wingard      P Yes  
Ancot Corp.                       Bart Raudebaugh      P Yes  
Apple Computer                    Ron Roberts          A Yes  
Berg Electronics                  Douglas Wagner       P Yes  
Cable Design Technologies         Richard Wagner       P Yes  
Ciprico Inc.                      Gerry johnsen        P Yes  
Circuit Assembly Corp.            Ian Morrell          P Yes  
Compaq Computer Corp.             Bill Ham             A YesC Cmnts 
Congruent Software, Inc.          Peter Johansson      P Yes  
Dallas Semiconductor              Charles Tashbook     P Yes  
Data General / Clariion           Gary S. Peterson     P Yes  
Distributed Processing Tech.      Roger Cummings       P Yes  
Eastman Kodak Co.                 Robert Reisch        P Yes  
ENDL                              I D Allan            P Yes  
Exabyte Corp.                     Tom Jackson          P Yes  
Fujitsu (FCPA)                    Don Vohar            A Yes  
Harting, Inc. of N. America       Marcos Barrionuevo   P Yes  IV 
Hewlett Packard Co.               J. R. Sims, III      P Yes  
Hitachi Cable Manchester,Inc      Zane Daggett         P Yes  
Hitachi Storage Products          Yang, Anthony        P Yes  
Honda Connectors                  Thomas J Kulesza     P Yes  
IBM Corp.                         George Penokie       P No   Cmnts 
Iomega Corp.                      Tim Bradshaw         P Yes  
KnowledgeTek, Inc.                Dennis Moore         P Yes  
Linfinity Micro                   Louis Grantham       P Yes  
LSI Logic Corp.                   John Lohmeyer        P YesC Cmnts 
Madison Cable Corp.               Robert A. Bellino    P Yes  
Maxtor Corp.                      Pete McLean          P Yes  
Methode Electronics, Inc.         Bob Masterson        P Yes  
Molex Inc.                        Joe Dambach          P Yes  
Mylex Corp.                       Brian Mckean         P Yes  
Ophidian Designs                  Edward A. Gardner    P Yes  IV 
Philips Electronics               Bill McFerrin        P Yes  
QLogic Corp.                      Skip Jones           P Yes  
Quantum Corp.                     James McGrath        P Yes  
Seagate Technology                Gene Milligan        P YesC IV Cmnts 
Silicon Systems, Inc.             Dave Guss            P Yes  
Sony Electronics, Inc.            Janek Rebalski       A Yes  
Storage Technology Corp.          Erich Oetting        P Yes  
Sun Microsystems Computer Co      Vit Novak            A YesC Cmnts 
SyQuest Technology, Inc.          Pat Mercer           P Yes  
Toshiba America Elec. Comp.       Tokuyuki Totani      P Yes  
UNISYS Corporation                Ken Hallam           P Yes  
Unitrode Corporation              Paul D. Aloisi       P YesC Cmnts 
Western Digital Corporation       Jeff Williams        P Yes  
Woven Electronics                 Doug Piper           P Yes  

Key:
P       Voter indicated he/she is principal member
A       Voter indicated he/she is alternate member
O       Voter indicated he/she is observer member
?       Voter indicated he/she is not member or does not know status
YesC    Yes with comments vote
Abs     Abstain vote
DNV     Organization did not vote
IV      Individual vote (not organizational vote)
Cmnts   Comments were included with ballot
NoCmnts No comments were included with a vote that requires comments
DUP     Duplicate ballot (last ballot received from org. is counted)
PSWD    The password was not correct (vote not counted)
ORG?    Organization is not voting member of T10 (vote not counted)


Ballot totals:
 47 Yes
  1 No
  0 Abstain
  0 Organization(s) did not vote
 48 Total voting organizations
  6 Ballot(s) included comments

This 2/3rds majority ballot passed.

**************************************************************

Comments attached to YesC ballot from Bill Ham of 
Compaq Computer Corp.:

All comments are editorial

1. pg6 1.  implementOrs is the preferred spelling per spellweb.com
2. pg7 2.3 change "from a FAX access" to (fax) like other fax numbers
3. pg8 3.1.1 [] should be () or not there at all.  This occurs several
    places in the spec.
4. pg8 3.1.1 remove comma after initiators
5. pg8 3.1.1 remove space after expanders
6. pg8 3.1.1 added ; before "see SAM-2"
7. pg8 3.1.1 segmentS
8. pg8 3.1.1 pick "bus-path" or "bus path" 
9. pg9 3.1.1 add : after "(media)"
10. pg9 3.1.1 add period at end of paragraph - "connector."
11. pg9/10 3.1.1 add : after "description)" several places
12. pg9/10 3.1.1 add period at end of several paragraphs
13. pg9 3.1.1 make lowercase "(see"
14. pg10 3.1.1 the end of definitions is not clear - it looks like
      Other physical placement... is a definition
15. pg10 3.1.1 the footnote isn't appearing as a footnote
16. pg11 3.1.2 Lmax is defined on pg14 as "maximum domain length"
17. pg12 3.1.2 Isn't SFF "small form factor"
18. pg12 3.1.2 pg14 uses "i"th not ith
19. pg12 3.1.2 add Tdd definition from pg14
20. pg12 3.2 add colons after expander two places
21. pg14 6.1.1.1 pg12 used ith not "i"th
22. pg14 6.1.1.1 is the multiplication obvious here or should an x
    be added?
23. pg15 6.1.1.2 add those - "such as those used"
24. pg15 6.1.1.2 previous defs used Vp, now the document is using
    Vp^-1.  Consistency might be better.
25. pg15 6.1.3 usable is the preferred spelling per spellweb.com
26. pg16 6.1.3 rewrite sentence using "he" (3rd paragraph)
27. pg16 6.1.3 use dash - in backplane applications - instead of
    ().  This is important wording.
28. pg17 7 change "This relates" to "These relate"
29. pg17 7 change independent to independently (it's an adverb)
30. pg18 7.1 change "Very significant...by" to "Significant...from"
31. pg21-23 table 1 has mixed case, tables 2 & 3 do not
32. pg21 table 1 "h" in fast-20 label
33. pg22-23 table 1 used "m" everywhere, tables 2 & 3 imply it
34. pg22 table 2 doesn't use NR so doesn't need the description
35. pg22-23 tables 2 & 3 add is to "data is in meters"
36. pg21 8.2 remove one from "devices one the"
37. pg30 9.1 add period at end of each item
38. pg32 9.1.1 add period "repeater."
39. pg32 9.1.2 move period inside quotes "converters."
40. pg34 Table 4 Fast-80 sync not defined in any referenced specs
41. pg35 9.1.4.3 extra CR after "phase transactions"
42. pg36 9.1.4.4.1 change Wired-Or to Wired-or
43. pg39 9.1.4.6 change the to a "asserting a line"
44. pg40 9.1.4.7 change [] to () or remove
45. pg40 9.1.4.7 add comma "is sent,"
46. pg40 9.1.4.7 add occurs "round trip time occurs"
47. pg40 9.1.4.7 remove "is required."
48. pg41 9.1.4.7 remove . from end of equation
49. pg41 table 6 Fast-80 not defined in any referenced specs
50. pg42 9.2 add - "two-port"
51. pg42 9.2 add - "address-enhancing"
52. pg42 9.2.1 add - "non-SCSI"
53. pg43 9.2.2 move period inside quotes "LUN Bridge."
54. pg44 9.2.2 lines 1 and 2 has to have
55. pg44 9.2.2 line 3 "busses" to "bus"
56. pg44 9.2.2 second paragraph change "ID5" to "ID 5" 
57. pg44 9.2.2 third paragraph change to "targets.  However,"
58. pg44 9.2.2 fifth paragraph what process and what RESELECTION
    timing issue?  This reference may be obsolete.
59. pg44/45 9.2.2 add periods at end of each list item
60. pg44 9.2.2 2nd from bottom remove period "content. between" 
61. pg44/45 9.2.2 Replace "REPORT LUN's" with "REPORT LUNS" (several
    other places too)
62. pg47 9.2.4 replace [] with () or remove
63. pg49 9.2.4 REPORT LUNS
64. pg50 10 add the "change the population"
65. pg50 10.1.1.1 add colon at end of 1) and 2)
66. pg50/51 10.1.1.1 add periods at end of each list item
67. pg51 10.1.1.2 change useable to usable

68. pg54/55 10.1.2.1 check underlines of (Figure 20) type phrases
69. pg54/55 10.1.2.1 add periods to end of each item
70. pg56 10.1.2.1.1 remove comma after "alone," at end of stage 6
71. pg59 10.2.1 change "any time )providing" to "any time provided"
72. pg60 12.1 change "one will need to" to "one needs to"
73. pg61 add space to "Table 7shows"
74. pg62 12.1.1 change "4.25V" to "4.25 V".  Similar changes may
    be needed elsewhere.
75. pg63 12.1.2 remove extra period "100 mA. ."
76. pg63 12.1.3 fix spaces "3.0V )" and change "4.0V" to "4.0 V"
77. pg63 12.1.4 add be "1.0 A be delivered"
78. pg63 12.2 add comma "TERMPWR lines, detailed"
79. pg63 12.3 a special kind of defect?
80. pg64 12.3 change 3rd line to contain "initiator; more than three"
81. pg64 12.3 last paragram against to for - "back up for expanders"
82. pg64 13 reorder second sentense "The effects ... manifested when
    operating under extended configurations."
83. pg69 13.4.2 move period inside quotes "fault." and "ground."
84. pg69 13.4.2 remove unmatched ]
85. pg75 font change is jarring
86. pg86 table 21 add space in "see14.5.2"
87. pg87 table 22 notes in a different font
88. pg88-91 tables 23-26 add spaces "see14.5.2" and "also14.6"
89. pg95 table 30 heading not bold



**************************************************************

Comments attached to No ballot from George Penokie of 
IBM Corp.:


Page 8

Note 1, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:10:24 PM

(E) Section 3.1.1 Definitions; Why are the definition not in alphabetical
order?

Note 2, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:10:14 PM

(E)-Section 3.1.1 Definitions- Bus segment types - Why is this not a separate
type of bus segment?

Page 10

Note 3, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:30:38 PM

(E)-Section 3.1.1 Definitions- Special
Note for location of setup connection point; Is this part of the definitions
or what? If it is then what is being defined.

Note 4, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:31:12 PM

(E)-Section 3.1.1 Definitions- Special
Note for location of setup connection point; What is an *. A footnote? A note?

Page 12

Note 5, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:13:10 PM

(E) 3.2 SCSI domain related: Are these supposed to be glossary entries or
what. If they are then why are they not in the glossary?

Page 17

Note 6, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:15:24 PM

(E) Section 7 Bus segment guidelines; Paragraph 3;This sounds bad. It should
be removed.

Note 7, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:14:55 PM

(E) Section 7 Bus segment guidelines; Paragraph 3; Are these classes the same
as the classes in tables 1 and 2?

Page 18

Note 8, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:57:15 PM

(E) Section 7.1; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values are in
metric (as they should be). But for some reason the stub lengths are in
inches. Those all need to be changed to metric values

Page 19

Note 9, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:18:22 PM

(E) Section 7.3; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values are in
metric (as they should be). But for some reason the stub lengths are in
inches. Those all need to be changed to metric values.

Page 20

Note 10, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:37:19 PM

(E) Section 7.4; Third paragraph; Is this the same case as talked about above?
Is it the same class the is in tables 1 and 2? If so then they should all be
the same name.

Note 11, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:58:30 PM

(E) Section 7.3; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values are in
metric (as they should be). But for some reason here lengths are in inches.
Those all need to be changed to metric values

Page 21

Note 12, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:34:27 PM

(E) Section 7.5 Information under table 1; Everything from 'Risk classes to **
should be included within the table (i.e. as a footnote to the table).

Note 13, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:59:18 PM

(E) Section 7.5; Table 1; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values
are in metric (as they should be). But for some reason here lengths are in
inches. Those all need to be changed to metric values


Page 22

Note 14, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:38:05 PM

(E) Section 7.5; table 2; Is this a rule class or a risk class? Table 1 says
risk table 2 says rule. Footnotes say risk.

Note 15, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:36:27 PM

(E) Section 7.5 Information under table 2; Everything from 'Risk classes to
'all length data in meters' should be included within the table (i.e. as a
foot Note to the table).

Note 16, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:59:31 PM

(E) Section 7.5; Table 2; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values
are in metric (as they should be). But for some reason here lengths are in
inches. Those all need to be changed to metric values

Page 23

Note 17, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:36:44 PM

(E) Section 7.5 Information under table 2; Everything from 'Risk classes to
'all length data in meters' should be included within the table (i.e. as a
foot Note to the table).

Note 18, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:59:45 PM

(E) Section 7.5; Table 3; Everywhere in the document the dimensional values
are in metric (as they should be). But for some reason here lengths are in
inches. Those all need to be changed to metric values

Page 24

Note 19, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:32:05 AM
Can a technical report have a shall?

Page 27

Note 20, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:38:32 AM
Another Shall.

Page 28

Note 21, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:20:03 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced.

Page 30

Note 22, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:41:54 AM
Another shall

Page 31

Note 23, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:20:38 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced. No reference to figures 7 and 8.

Page 33

Note 24, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:46:28 AM
Another shall.

Note 25, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:46:58 AM
Another shall.

Note 26, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:47:29 AM
Another shall.

Note 27, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:47:50 AM
Another shall.

Page 34

Note 28, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:48:23 AM
Another shall.

Note 29, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:48:56 AM
Another shall.

Note 30, George Penokie, 08/25/98 11:49:15 AM
Another shall.

Note 31, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:39:36 PM

(E) Section 9.1.4.1 last paragraph; last sentence; What is 'ultra'?

Note 32, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:44:01 PM

(T) Section 9.1.4.3; table 4; Fast-80 is nowhere else in this document it
should be removed from here.

Page 35

Note 33, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:23:41 PM

(E) Section 9.1.4.3; First sentence after figure 10; There is a hard carriage
return here that should not be here.

Note 34, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:25:07 PM

(E) Section 9.1.4.3; 3rd paragraph after figure 10; 3rd sentence. 'Can' is not
a word that should be used.

Page 39

Note 35, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:41:08 PM

(E) Section 9.1.4.4.4; 1st paragraph after figure 12; 2nd sentence; L and D
have "" but S does not.

Page 41

Note 36, George Penokie, 08/25/98 05:02:24 PM

(T) Section 9.1.4.7; table 6; Fast-80 is nowhere else in this document it
should be removed from here.

Page 44

Note 37, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:38:16 PM
Another shall.

Note 38, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:48:01 PM

(E) Section 9.2.2; 5th bullet; text in ()s; This looks like an editors Note to
me.

Note 39, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:39:02 PM
Another shall.

Note 40, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:39:22 PM
Another shall.

Page 45

Note 41, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:40:05 PM
Another shall.

Note 42, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:40:17 PM
Another shall.

Note 43, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:40:48 PM
Another shall.

Page 46

Note 44, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:20:48 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be

referenced. There is no reference to this figure.

Page 47

Note 45, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:21:01 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced. There is no reference to this figure.

Note 46, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:46:05 PM

(E) Section 9.2.4; 4th paragraph; last sentence; Yes they are but this is
already defined elsewhere.

Page 49

Note 47, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:56:36 PM
Another shall.

Note 48, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:56:48 PM
Another shall.

Note 49, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:56:54 PM
Another shall.

Note 50, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:57:06 PM
Another shall.

Note 51, George Penokie, 08/25/98 01:57:14 PM
Another shall.

Page 50

Note 52, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:01:24 PM
Another shall.

Page 56

Note 53, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:09:16 PM
Another shall.

Page 58

Note 54, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:12:38 PM
Another shall.

Note 55, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:13:01 PM
Another shall.

Note 56, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:14:12 PM
Another shall.

Note 57, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:14:28 PM
Another shall.

Page 59

Note 58, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:31:57 PM
Another shall.

Note 59, George Penokie, 08/25/98 02:32:39 PM
Another shall.

Page 60

Note 60, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:26:44 PM

(E)- The entire document - There are several requirements in this technical
report listed as shalls. Is this allowed?

Note 61, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:27:57 PM

(E) Section 12.1 4th paragraph 2nd sentence; The ) at the end of the sentence
should be deleted.

Page 61

Note 62, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:28:49 PM

(E) Section 12.1; paragraph above table 7, There should be no space between 7
and shows.

Page 63

Note 63, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:42:50 PM

(E) Section 12.3; 2nd paragraph; 3rd sentence; What is a 'very special kind of
defect'?

Page 66

Note 64, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:21:09 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced. This figure is not referenced anywhere.

Page 67

Note 65, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:21:26 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced..

Page 75

Note 66, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:21:41 PM

(E) Many places in the document - The are no references to many of the figures
and table throughout the document. All figures and table need to be
referenced. None of the remaining tables have references.

Note 67, George Penokie, 08/25/98 04:29:26 PM
Section 14.7 All tables: Is there any way that these table can be made to look
like they belong to this document?


**************************************************************

Comments attached to YesC ballot from John Lohmeyer of 
LSI Logic Corp.:

Editorial changes are identified with an (E); Technical changes are 
identified with a (T).  In several cases (E/T) is used because the 
comment may be editorial, technical, or both.

1. (E) Patent statement at the bottom of page 2.  There appears to be an
extraneous carriage return in the second paragraph.

2. (E) 3.1.1 Definition of device, second sentence.  Change 
'(The ... initiators see SAM-2)' to 
'The ... initiators (see SAM-2).'

3. (E) 6.1.3, fifth paragraph.  Avoid usage of the gender-specific pronoun 
'he'.  Consider changing this sentence to:  "For example if the 3 meter 
limit for Fast-10 SCSI is exceeded, then it should be expect that 
reflections would need to be under very good control or some other features 
would need to be better than minimally required."

4. (E) 6.1.3, seventh paragraph.  The abbreviations, FEP, TPE, and PTFE, 
should be added to the list in 3.1.2.

5. (E) 7.1, category 2).  Consider changing 'very electrically friendly'

to a more standards-friendly wording.  Perhaps the sentence should be 
changed to: "This case, which works well electrically, is commonly ...".

6. (E) 8.1.1, First paragraph under Figure 2.  Change '16-but' to 
'16, but'.

7. (E) 8.2. Several places.  Change 'negation' or 'negated' to 'false'.

8. (E) 8.2. Second paragraph.  While SCSI devices are quite complex, 
I doubt that they 'think'.  Consider changing the three sentences to:
"If the upper bits are not set to the false state the 16-bit devices may 
incorrectly observe that other 16-bit devices are arbitrating for the bus 
(since the upper data bits may be true) and may fail.  Some electrical 
means for biasing these bits to the false state should be employed.  One 
simple way for SE devices is to add a high-value resistor (say 100 K Ohms)
to the 5V or 3V supply."

9. (T) Figure 3.  This figure implies that more than one 16-bit device is
permitted.  If so, won't these devices negotiate for a wide data path, then
fail when they actually attempt wide data transfer.  How is this different
|from Figure 6, which disallows multiple wide data paths?

10. (E) 9.1.1, third paragraph.  The period '.' is missing at the end of 
the paragraph.

11. (E) 9.1.4.1, rule 4. Delete '(not considered in this technical report)'

12. (E) 9.1.4.3, just below Figure 10.  There appears to be an
extraneous carriage return in the second line.

13. (E) 9.1.4.3, Second paragraph after Figure 10.  Delete 'sitting like
good SCSI citizens'.

14. (E) 9.1.4.4.3, last paragraph.  Change 'a lot of margin built into' to
'adequate margin included in'.  In the same paragraph, last sentence, change
'excessive' to 'excessively'.

15. (E) 9.1.4.4.4, first paragraph, second sentence. This sentence should be
reworded as 'In Figure 12 parameters whose first letter is 'L' are physical 
lengths, 'D' refers to differential segments, and S refers to single ended 
segments'.

16. (E/T) 9.1.4.7. This clause includes several instances of phrases such as
'ACK (REQ)'.  In several places this seems to imply that the initiator may
send ACK pulses before receiving REQ pulses.  In point of fact, the target 
always sends the REQ pulses before the initiator sends the corresponding ACK
pulses.  (However, there are two REQ/ACK counters, one at the target and 
another at the initiator.  Due to timing differences, these two counters may
have have different values at any given time.)

I suggest that the first sentence be changed from 'The REQ/ACK offset is the
difference between the number of ACK's(REQ's) sent and the number of
REQ's(ACK's) received in a synchronous data phase transmission.' to 'The 
REQ/ACK offset is the difference between the number of REQ pulses 
sent(received) and the number of ACK pulses received(sent) in a synchronous 
data phase transmission.'.

The third paragraph should be changed to: 'When the target sends the first 
REQ pulse there is a minimum of one round trip time before the first ACK
pulse can be received from the initiator.  This round trip time includes 
the data processing time at the initiator.  Meanwhile, the target may
continue to issue REQ pulses until the offset counter reaches the maximum 
REQ/ACK offset level that was negotiated.'

The fourth paragraph should be changed to: 'If the maximum offset level is 
reached, the target waits until it receives a decrementing ACK pulse before 
issuing another REQ pulse. When the maximum REQ/ACK offset is reached it 
means that the initiator has stalled the transfer because it is not ready to
send or receive another transfer.  Initiators designed for maximum 
performance avoid this condition.'

Either delete the fifth paragraph (since it is redundant with SCSI-2, SPI, 
and SPI-2 requirements) or change it to: 'The receiving device is required
to accept up to at least the maximum REQ/ACK offset level of data phase 
transfers in its buffers.'.

17. (E/T) 9.2.2, eighth paragraph.  This paragraph claims that LUN bridges 
may use the arbitration process used in simple expanders described in 9.1.

I did not find the arbitration process described in 9.1 (searching for the 
string 'arbitration').  Were words lost in 9.1?

18. (E/T) 9.2.2, fifth point in the list of Case 1 LUN bridge features. 
Included is a parenthetical statement that a new device type code is 
required.  Assuming a new code was added to SPC-2, replace this statement
with the code value assigned.  If the new code value was not added to SPC-2,
we need to get one assigned before forwarding this technical report.

19. (E/T) 9.2.4, fifth paragraph.  "SCSI switches constitute a separate 
SCSI device type" implies that yet another SCSI device type code value needs
to be added to SPC-2.  Has this value been added?  If so, it should be 
reported here.  If not, we need to get one assigned before forwarding this 
technical report.

20. (E) Clause 14.  There is the potential that the pin assignment tables 
in this clause might disagree with those in the referenced standards and 
specifications.  There should be an explicit statement early in clause 14 
saying, "The pin assignment tables in this clause are included for 
convenience, however should there be a conflict between this technical 
report and the pertinent standard or specification, the pin assignments 
in the pertinent standard or specification shall prevail."

21. (E) Clause 14.  For each pin assignment table in Clause 14, there should
be a reference as to which standard or specification currently defines the
pin assignment data.  If it is intended that EPI supersede any of the SFF
specifications, then it should be clearly stated that EPI is the pertinent
specification for that connector.

22. (E) Table 15. There is a space missing before the '+' for the first two
signals.



**************************************************************

Comments attached to YesC ballot from Gene Milligan of 
Seagate Technology:

EPI comments:

1) The editor's note should be deleted from the cover page.
2) The abstract would be clearer if "for formal compliance with standards" 
were deleted.
3) The technical editor is to be congratulated on a very informative work 
product.



**************************************************************

Comments attached to YesC ballot from Vit Novak of 
Sun Microsystems Computer Co:

Figure 12 : Change all DF/SEs to DIFF/SE as more self-explanatory.


**************************************************************

Comments attached to YesC ballot from Paul D. Aloisi of 
Unitrode Corporation:

EPI Letter Ballot Comments


1. Section 6.1.2 2nd paragraph last sentence SE Ended device. Removed ended
2. Section 7 first paragraph last sentence, a should be are.
3. Section 7 3rd paragraph 1st sentence "system is used", add is.
4. Class 3 description needs to be reworded. Last that to those? 
5. Section 7.3 3rd paragraph, second sentence Mv should be mV.
6. Section 7.3 8th Paragraph Note tat this applies for positions near the 
terminators that are being used for bus termination.
7. Table 1 there is a stray h in the Fast-20 block
8. Tables 2 and 3 FAST-xx should be Fast-xx
9. Section 8.1.1 3rd paragraph, 2 - 16 bit devices with 8 - 8 bit devices 
between them is an addressing problem. The 8 bit devices can not talk to the 
16 bit devices if they are using all the 8 bit addresses.  2 - 16 bit devices 
with 6 - 8 bit devices will work.
10.  EPI REV 14 appears on the 30 page on instead of rev 15.
11. 9.1.4.3 3rd paragraph, first sentence has an extra carriage return.
12. 9.1.4.4.3 2nd Paragraph 4th sentence last word should have "a" in front of

it.
13. 9.2.4 The paragraph before figure 18 should really be after figure 18, 
since it talks about figure 19.
14. 12.1.1 SCSI-2 alternate allows for 2.63 volts as well as 2.85 volts (See 
note 2 in figure 10).
15. Sentence above Table 7 is missing a space after Table 7
16. Table 8 column headers don't explain that is the number of conductors and 
the wire gauge.
17. Paragraph after table 8 should end with only 1 or 2 wires distributing 

termpwr. 
18. 13.4.1 Should that be braided shield is equivalent to 8 AWG wire? 
19. Complain about the words Stubbing connection and Bussing connection in 
section 14.2, better terms, stubbing connector means bending the pins or 
dislodging.  Stub connection and Bus connection are better terms.
20. Table 15 Spaces missing on signal 1 & 2.
21. 



******************** End of Ballot Report ********************

--
John Lohmeyer                  Email: john.lohmeyer at symbios.com
LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7036
Colo Spgs, CO 80907              BBS: +1-719-533-7950

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





More information about the T10 mailing list