Proposed responses to NCR review comments on SAM Rev 12.

Charles Monia, SHR3-2/W4, 237-6757, monia@starch.enet.dec.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
of SAM.

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
      glossary.

>
> 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 mailing list