Proposed responses to NCR review comments on SAM Rev 12.
Charles Monia, SHR3-2/W4, 237-6757, email@example.com 03-Jan-1994 1802
monia at starch.enet.dec.com
Mon Jan 3 15:02:39 PST 1994
From: Charles Monia
SAM Technical Editor
To: Members of X3T9.2
Subject: Proposed Response to NCR Review Comments on SAM, revision 12
The following are proposed responses to the NCR commnents on revision 12
Comments are included verbatim, followed by proposed responses, when
applicable. The responses are preceded by a right arrow ">". Comments with no
response are proposed for inclusion as specified.
Begin proposed responses
1. The figure just after "1 Scope" should be numbered.
2. The reference to SCSI-2 in the second to last paragraph of
the Scope Clause should be "X3.131-199x.
3. The Scope should include a statement that additional SCSI-3
documents may be added to the architecture without SAM
necessarily being updated to reflect the addition.
4. All TBD's must be removed (that is, completed) before a
document goes to public review.
5. In 3.1.1, either restate this definition to eliminate the
term "ACA attribute" or define "ACA attribute" in the
> The term will be defined in the glossary.
6. In 3.5, Notation for Procedures and Functions, the usage of
() and  differ from their usage in 3.4.1, Object
Notation. Readers could become confused. I suggest
aligning these two notations by always using  for
optional items and always using () for item lists.
> While I agree there's potential for confusion, I don't see
> an easy way around this problem since both notations are
> based on well-established conventions. I believe the notations,
> if used carefully and in the proper context, should not be a problem.
More information about the T10