Draft Minutes T10 Plenary Meeting #32 - July 15, 1999

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Wed Jul 28 10:07:14 PDT 1999


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*
<<and Gene Milligan said that ISO activities should proceed separately but
follow the committee's actions.>>

     I think I said the first part and do not think I said the last part. I
think it should be "and Gene Milligan said that ISO activities should
proceed separately but be influenced by ANS actions."

<<Gene Milligan stated his preference that consideration of the standards
be
postponed to their renewal date.>>

     I think it was pertinent to include my comment concerning the SPI
dedication. I think the minutes should state "Gene Milligan stated his
preference that consideration of the standards be
postponed to their renewal date and that the committee in the case of SPI
give consideration to the dedication it contains."

<<Rob addressed concerns raised by Jeff Williams in the working group by
stating
that an additional proposal will be brought to the September meeting that
adds
the fairness counter principle that was dropped from 99-160r3.  It had been
dropped in the belief that a simpler proposal would have an easier time
gaining approval.>>

     This is not clear to those not present, it should be "Rob addressed
concerns raised by Jeff Williams in the working group by stating that an
additional proposal for QAS fairness will be brought to the September
meeting that adds the fairness counter principle that was dropped from
99-160r3.  The QAS fairness proposal had been dropped in the belief that
the non QAS portion of the fairness proposal would have an easier time
gaining approval."

<<Gene Milligan objected to the ruling of the chair regarding the two-week
rule
since he claimed it is in violation of the SD-2.>>

     The minutes sound biased and as is often the case "it" is a confusing
reference. This should be "Gene Milligan objected to the ruling of the
chair regarding the two-week rule
since ruling is in violation of requirements stated in the SD-2."

<<Bob Snively requested an explanation of how these codes aid in error
isolation.  Rob stated that it would improve the information provided to
users and service personnel.  Gene Milligan stated that the codes can be
used in the
processing of returned drives.>>

     There is a context problem here. Bob's comments questioned not just
these new codes but the value of ASCQs in general. My response was
addressed at ASCQs and not these specific new codes.

<<Gene Milligan informed the committee of a problem with the `persist
across
power cycle' capability in persistent reservations that can render a drive
inoperative.  He stated that a proposal for changes will be presented to
the
September working group.>>

     Well the purpose of this was to highlight the problem. The minutes
should state that "The prohibition of the Write Buffer command for
downloading microcode prior to the drive becoming ready is the issue."

<<Gene Milligan gave an oral report and provided an electronic report in
document T10/99-216r0.>>

     What does this mean? I presented the report using overheads (clears,
foils, transparencies, whatever) and provided an electronic copy of the
report for inclusion of the minutes. As far as I know all the items, except
SFF, reported in the minutes were conveyed orally. Nevertheless they are in
the minutes.

<<Gene noted that the DIS is not yet available for approval, but that given
the timing of the T10 meetings the opportunity to approve the DIS will
likely expire before the September
meeting.>>

     Well I also requested that George Penokie review what the differences
between the ANS and the DIS consisted of. "George Penokie reported that the
changes between the ANS and the DIS were the use of ISO/IEC publication
numbers and editorial changes.

<< Pete McLean reported that the content of ATAPI-5 is technically complete
and asked interested persons review it.>>

     This should be << Pete McLean reported that the content of ATA/ATAPI-5
is technically complete and asked interested persons review it.>>

<<Gene Milligan reported that Peter Johansson was taking steps to fast
track
IEEE 1394 though SC 26.>>

     I doubt that I reported that at this meeting. Had my ISO/IEC report
been included in the minutes it would be clear from the minutes that I had
reported that SC 26 had requested that they be disbanded and that the work
be assumed by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25/WG 4. Consequently if IEEE 1394 is fast
tracked, as Peter Johansson has indicated in the past, it would be done by
SC 25.

<<313)   John Lohmeyer will arrange a meeting to discuss changes and
updates in
the T10 procedures.>>

     This should be "313)   John Lohmeyer will arrange a meeting to discuss
proposals for changes and updates to the T10 procedures."

<<319)   Gene Milligan will submit a NWIP and a CD contribution for RBC to
ISO/IEC for consideration.>>

     This should be "319)   Gene Milligan will forward a ISO/IEC NWIP and a
CD contribution for RBC to NCITS for further processing." Similar wording
should be used for (335).


Thanks,

Gene




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






More information about the T10 mailing list