Draft Minutes of SPI Physical Working Group - Oct 13-14, 1999

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Wed Oct 20 03:29:22 PDT 1999


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*
<<Late in the meeting, Gene Milligan presented a hand-drawn foil with some
differences in the timing budget.  Bruce Leshay suggested that rather than
creating another document dealing with this subject that Gene should work with
Bill Petty to capture Gene's differences.  Gene agreed provided that Bill's
document accommodate the timing budget for a non-free running clock.  Bill
agreed to work with Gene.>>

     Actually I did not agree. I thought it was better while we were all
together to see if a revised format for the timing budget could be agreed to. I
merely gave in to those that did not want to continue the meeting and apparently
wanted to catch early flights. It was incidentally not late. I think it was
early enough to cancel the afternoon refreshments.

     There are already multiple timing budgets and it would be helpful to also
test the new budget styles against the existing Fast 80 budget.

     Perhaps for the minutes you meant "later in the meeting" as it was
subsequent and perhaps you meant that I "agreed with several aspects" of Bill's
proposed budget as I do.


<<George Penokie said that he believes we now have proposals for most of the
areas of SPI-4.  We now need to get serious about the detailed numbers.  He
proposed that we target the December meeting for making decisions on the SPI-4
direction.  He wants convergence on the technical direction so he can begin
work on putting together the SPI-4 draft document.>>

     I think as the group worked through this discussion there was a strong
indication of a target for a fleshed out definition with general agreement by
March.

<<Gene Milligan and Mark Evans noted that the 12/2/99 and 12/3/99 meeting is in
conflict with the 12/3/99 T13 meeting.  John said that since T10 had already
approved this meeting, the issue should be addressed at the 11/4/99 T10
meeting.>>

     That is correct. But since it will come up again I think it should also
include the fact that there has been a request to schedule the working group
meeting during the week of 13 December that is not in conflict with either T11
or T13. It has long been expected when the four committees (T10, T11, T12, and
T13) were spun out from T9 that they would, in a spirit of cooperation, not
schedule their meetings in conflict with the sister (or brother if you prefer)
committees.

<<It was noted that the proposed meeting on 2/2/00 and 2/3/00 is in conflict
with a proposed Cable Performance and SSM meeting proposed for 2/1/00 and
2/2/00.  John took an action item to contact Skip Jones regarding this issue.>>

     I think this is correct as far as it goes but is not complete. I noted that
I have a conflict with those dates and requested that the meeting either be held
the week before or the week after. If the above week has to be the week I could
tolerate, although still in conflict, I requested that the meeting be 31 January
and 1 February.



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