IEEE addressing

Edward A. Gardner eag at
Wed May 27 19:11:15 PDT 1998

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "Edward A. Gardner" <eag at>
I think the specification of whether to use the MSB or canonical form, and
its precise translation to VPD, needs to be a normative part of the
standard, not buried in an informative example.  Otherwise there is the risk
that one vendor may use one form, another may use the other, with the result
that both present the identical bit pattern.  The net result is that the
IEEE addresses cannot be depended upon to be unique, which defeats the
entire purpose of including them.

I personally think this is significant enough that someone should submit a
public review comment on SPI-2 so this can be fixed.  (If it were already a
published standard, it would justify an amendment).  However, I have no
personal or corporate interest in this and will not submit such a comment

Edward A. Gardner               eag at
Ophidian Designs                719 593-8866 voice
1262 Hofstead Terrace           719 593-8989 fax
Colorado Springs, CO  80907

-----Original Message-----
From: George Penokie <gop at>
To: t10 at Symbios.COM <t10 at Symbios.COM>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 4:38 PM
Subject: IEEE addressing

>* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
>* George Penokie <gop at>
>I have discovered (the hard way) that there are two forms in which the IEEE
>bit company IDs can be interpreted One way is the MSB form and the other is
>Canonical form. When you go out and look at the IEEE web site to see what

* 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