UK comments on ISO/CD 14561 - Implementation of SCSI-2 for scanners

Hallam, Ken J Ken.Hallam at unisys.com
Fri Aug 29 09:44:31 PDT 1997


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* "Hallam, Ken J" <Ken.Hallam at unisys.com>
*
I would agree with the comments from G.B. in that a mechanism needs to
be established to insure harmony between the standards, or that the
standard should only reference the original and not "extract" it.

Ken Hallam
Unisys

>----------
>From: 	Gene Milligan[SMTP:Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com]
>Sent: 	Friday, August 29, 1997 12:59 AM
>To: 	t10
>Subject: 	FW: UK comments on ISO/CD 14561 - Implementation of SCSI-2 for
>scanners
>
>* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
>* Gene Milligan <Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com>
>*
>All and especially John. Do we want to submit an emergency comment to the JTC
>1 
>TAG? (Emergency in the sense that the deadline will be past before some of
>you 
>see this.)
>
>Gene
>---------------------- Forwarded by Gene Milligan on 08/29/97 08:00 AM 
>---------------------------
>
>
>Roy.Reed at digital.com (Roy Reed) on 08/29/97 02:44:51 PM
>To: gene milligan, jmaergner at vnet.ibm.com ("'jmaergner at vnet.ibm.com'") @ 
>INTERNET
>cc:  
>Subject: FW: UK comments on ISO/CD 14561 - Implementation of SCSI-2 for
>scanners
>
>Gene, Juergen,
>
>This is one of the standards I mentioned in Brazil where extracts from 
>SCSI are being used in other standards. On this one, the comment date 
>of 1 September has crept up on me so I have quickly put together the 
>following comments on behalf of the UK.
>
>The secretariat for ISO TC171 SC2 (Document Imaging Applications) is 
>ANSI
>(actually it is the Association for Information and Image Management 
>International in Silver Spring in the US, tel: 301 587 8202 email: 
>jflanagan at aiim.org)
>
>Any comments? Have you seen this via your own NBs?
>
>Gene, thanks for comments on WG4 minutes. Agree with them all apart 
>from the fact that it is 'von Pattay', not 'van Pattey'.
>
>--Roy
>
>----------
>From:  Roy Reed
>Sent:  29 August 1997 12:24
>To:  'bernadette_shine at bsi.org.uk'
>Cc:  'peter_restell at bsi.org.uk'
>Subject:  UK comments on ISO/CD 14561 - Implementation of SCSI-2 for 
>scanners
>
>Bernadette,
>
>I have now reviewed ISO/CD 14561 as requested.
>
>On close examination, the CD is virtually an exact subset of ISO/IEC 
>9316. What ISO/TC 171 SC 2 have done is extract the cabling and 
>scanner specific portions of ISO/IEC 9316 and use it for their own 
>sector specific SCSI standard.
>(ISO/IEC 9316 contains a number of sub-sections covering scanners, 
>CD-ROMs, printer devices, direct access devices etc.)
>
>Whilst there is some sense in this approach (not duplicating work, 
>using a part of a stable standard, having their own 50 page document 
>instead of the 450 page SCSI standard etc.), the approach is 
>fundamentally flawed.
>
>If any changes were made to ISO/IEC 9316, then these would not be 
>reflected in ISO 14561. This could lead, at worst case scenarios, to 
>an ISO 14561 compliant scanner not being able to function correctly 
>when connected to an updated/revised/amended ISO/IEC 9316 compliant 
>system.
>
>   -------------------------------------------------------
>My recommendation is that the UK vote is 'No', with the following 
>comments:
>
>General comment.
>The U.K. is concerned about the fundamentally flawed approach taken in 
>the generation of this standard. By extracting parts of ISO/IEC 9316 
>to generate ISO/CD 14561, there is no mechanism available to ensure 
>the continued harmony of these two standards, for example, if any 
>changes were made to ISO/IEC 9316 then this could mean that the two 
>standards have diverged, and this type of conflict must be avoided.
>
>Editorial comment.
>Page 3, Section 4.1 Physical description. Second sentence.
>Add word so it reads "Both ends OF the cable are terminated"
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------  
>
>
>I do not know if there are any mechanisms for getting around this. It 
>would not be sensible or cost effective to break down ISO/IEC 9316 
>into several parts to address individual sectorial requirements (which 
>they cover already as one document).
>Knowing the reasons why ISO/TC 171 took this approach may lend itself 
>to supplying a solution.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Roy
>
>
>
>*
>* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
>
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com




More information about the T10 mailing list