Draft Minutes of Parallel SCSI WG - Sept 12, 2000
John Lohmeyer
lohmeyer at t10.org
Thu Sep 21 12:43:53 PDT 2000
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Gene,
Thank for your comments on the Parallel SCSI WG minutes. I've created rev
1 of the minutes with the changes you suggested as described below. The
new revision is posted at:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.00/00-306r1.pdf
John
At 09:39 AM 9/20/2000, you wrote:
>* 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."
Changed as suggested.
><<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."
Second change incorporated as I (and Rob Elliott) think it is more accurate.
><<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.
I assumed there is only one loophole and added "a".
><<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."
Recommend changes incorporated and two other instances of ISO were changed
to ISO/IEC.
--
John Lohmeyer Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Logic Corp. Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr. Fax: +1-719-533-7183
Colo Spgs, CO 80907
*
* 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