SBP-2 Study Group

Chang, Ben ben at
Tue Aug 8 10:03:42 PDT 2000

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "Chang, Ben" <ben at>
Peter & Alan,

I support adding features to SBP-2 (e.g. for scanners, etc.), but makers of
existing SBP-2 devices (e.g. HDD) need to understand which functions are
optional (for them). The clarification probably belongs in RBC or other disk
profile, but the distinction should be clear. I just want to make sure that
SBP-2 changes appropriately ripple through to RBC.

Ben Chang

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1)
[mailto:alan_berkema at]
		Sent:	Thursday, August 03, 2000 3:07 PM
		To:	'Peter Johansson'; NCITS T10
		Cc:	IEEE 1394; 1394 TA
		Subject:	RE: SBP-2 Study Group

		* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
		* "BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <alan_berkema at>
		The biggest criticism I always get about SBP-2 is that it is
		Master/Slave (Initiator/Target) in a world where many
		appliances might prefer to operate peer to peer. I realize
		that for SBP-2 this also has many advantages.

		Any chance of discussing alternative ways to address this
		Besides just saying that a device support both roles.

		Alan Berkema
		Engineer Scientist
		Hewlett Packard MS# 5558
		8000 Foothills Blvd
		Roseville California
		Phone 916 785-5605
		Fax   916 785-1968

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Peter Johansson [mailto:PJohansson at]
		Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 1:53 PM
		To: NCITS T10
		Cc: IEEE 1394; 1394 TA; P1394.3
		Subject: SBP-2 Study Group

		With the approval of the T10 Chair, I intend to convene a
study group to
		discuss amendment, extension or revision of SBP-2. The
meeting will take
		place in Huntington Beach, CA, during the T10 meeting the
week of September
		11 - 15, 2000.

		THE PURPOSE of this message is TO POLL prospective
participants with
		respect to one of two meeting times:

		A) 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Wednesday, September 13

			--- OR ---

		B) 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Friday, September 15

		Note that in both cases the meeting is likely to be much
shorter, on the
		order of two to four hours. The times I give above are
merely the maximum
		time we would have a room.

		A possible negative against choice A) is that the SCSI CAP
meeting occurs
		concurrently (we may lose some otherwise interested parties
to that working
		group) while a possible negative against choice B) is that
many T10
		participants would rather be gone by Friday (at least it's
an AM meeting,
		so you can catch a flight home). If the study group meeting
is not too
		long, perhaps it's possible to arrange the CAP agenda to
avoid conflict of

		To help you assess your interest in this study group, a
tentative agenda
		for discussion is:

		a) Reduced start-up latency from idle condition
		b) Explicit description of how to transport 16-byte or
larger CDBs
		c) SBP modifications necessary for IEEE P1394.1 environment
(Serial Bus
		d) Isochronous facilities in SBP
		e) Bi-directional data transfer (new ORB type)
		f) Other items suggested by participants

		There would be educational presentations made on a) and c)

		The goal of the study group is to determine if a new work
item should be
		initiated and, if so, what should be its scope.

		I have copied this to more than just the T10 reflector
because possible
		revisions to SBP-2 are of interest to a wider audience.

		PLEASE RESPOND DIRECTLY TO ME and keep the reflectors


		Peter Johansson

		Congruent Software, Inc.
		98 Colorado Avenue
		Berkeley, CA  94707

		(510) 527-3926
		(510) 527-3856 FAX

		PJohansson at

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