Re: Bug in the scsi_id (0.9 version) utility

[brooks@netgate.net]

> This is incorrect; SPC does specify zero in reserved fields.
>
>> The SAM definitions section and the SPC Keywords section provides a
>> definition of what should be in a reserved field.

Thanks for the clarification.  I've submitted the bug to OpenSolaris.

>> That said we are not required to be checking the reserved fields for zero
>> but in this case we are doing so to work around another device issue.
>>
>> Instead of adding yet another device work around to the "if" which
>> makes it hard to rework the code in the future as you do not know how many
>> vendor, models are running through certain non compliant checks (i.e. more
>> than the intend models may exhibit like behavior).
>>
>> We possible should look at updating how we handle not compliant behavior.
>> scsi_id.config is available but that must not be useful in all cases as
>> the standard page 83 code has a check for the pre-spc3-83 case even though
>> it is selectable through the config file and command line.
>
> Some type of blacklist might work: we're already starting to find USB
> devices that aren't too happy with VPD inquiries.

That makes sense.  Please let me know what you decide, and if there's 
anything more I can do to help.

Kevin