Draft Minutes of Parallel SCSI WG - Sept 12, 2000

Gene.Milligan at seagate.com Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
Wed Sep 20 07:39:30 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
*

<<Bruce invited people to people to use the Seagate lab to make their own
measurements and/or send him materials to measure.>>

     I know there is a people to people program but this is not it. The
minutes should be changed to "Bruce invited people to use the Seagate lab
to make their own measurements and/or send him materials to measure."

     ((This offer still stands. It is intended to help eliminate the
confusion over bus system loss budgets that has interfered with agreement
on a single signal mask.))

<<Bill Galloway asked if there was anyone present who wanted to do
bidirectional
data transfers in data group (non-packetized) transfers.  No one present
supported defining bidirectional data group transfers.>>

     I think this overstates, perhaps misstates positions. Due to OSD and
some known proprietary implementations it is recognized that SAM should not
prohibit bi-directional transfers. Bi-directional in this case is referring
to a single command that results in the transport transferring data in two
directions before completion even if at any given time data is transferring
in only one direction. At the moment SPI-4 mistakenly prohibits data group
transfers at the Fast 160 rate. This of course biases the standard against
future enhancements of data group transfers. Data group transfers need to
be restored for all data rates. But the near term issue was to remove the
SAM prohibition of bi-directional transfers and then the next step is to
decide in due course what if any commands should include bi-directional
transfers. Some transports will be more amenable to bi-directional than
others but working on bi-directional for data group transfers certainly
takes a back seat to restoring data group transfers for Fast 160.

     I think the minutes should be changed to "Bill Galloway asked if there
was anyone present who wanted to do bi-directional data transfers in data
group (non-packetized) transfers.  No one present proposed defining
bi-directional data group transfers at this meeting." or to "Bill Galloway
asked if there was anyone present who wanted to do bi-directional data
transfers in data group (non-packetized) transfers.  No one responded."

<<Bill Galloway noted that the proposal also has loophole. >>

     Nit to "Bill Galloway noted that the proposal also has a loophole." or
to "Bill Galloway noted that the proposal also has loopholes." I do not
recall which is correct.

<<Error Corrections in ISO SPI-3 (Milligan)

Gene Milligan asked if the group wished correct any of the errors in the
ISO
version of SPI-3 based on knowledge developed so far in preparation of
SPI-4.
The group recommended against making any changes in SPI-3.>>

     Should be "Error Corrections in ISO/IEC SPI-3 (Milligan)

Gene Milligan asked if the group wished correct any of the errors in the
ISO/IEC
version of SPI-3 based on knowledge developed so far in preparation of
SPI-4 and especially with regard to not accounting for leakage current of
OR-tied signals. The group recommended against correcting any of the known
errors in the ISO/IEC SPI-3."


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