Draft minutes of SPI-3 Working Group - 9/15/98

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Thu Sep 24 12:41:16 PDT 1998


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*
Regarding 4.2:

<< He noted where the DMTF wording had been added to the proposal and that
margin testing been add to the proposal at the request of LSI Logic and
others.

The CDB fields associated with the margin testing description were not
defined
to the satisfaction of all present.  The group discussed the how best to
define the margin testing and adjustment mechanisms.>> should be:

" He noted where the DMTF wording had been added to the proposal and that
margin testing had been added to the proposal at the request of LSI Logic
and others.

The CDB fields associated with the margin testing description were not
defined
to the satisfaction of all present.  The group discussed how best to
define the margin testing and adjustment mechanisms."

     In addition I think the minutes should capture the point that the
proposal is intended for SPC-2 or SPC-3 and in the future will be moved to
a protocol working group agenda.

<<4.9    Universal Backplane Annex (98-101) [Wallace]

Since Dean Wallace could not attend, discussion of this topic was deferred
to
the November.>>

     The minutes are bogus on this item. See the attendance list. As I
recall it the annex was recommended for acceptance or previously
recommended for acceptance for inclusion in SPI-3.

Regarding 4.12.

     The minutes are correct and no change is necessary. But for this item
at the November meeting I want to point out that we have now accepted into
SPI-3 two proposals for the use of the previously reserved two SCSI bus
phases. A recommendation is needed to remove this conflict. I suspect the
editor intends to or may already have removed the conflict but I think
there should be a recorded vote. If I recall incorrectly please provide a
pointer to the appropriate minutes.

Regarding 4.15
<<A straw poll favored further consideration of the proposal 11:6.>>

     Is this correct? I recalled that there was a vote sufficient to
motivate the proposer to abandon the proposal.



*
* 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