SBP-2: When are we done?

PJohansson at aol.com PJohansson at aol.com
Wed Jun 18 11:56:26 PDT 1997


* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* PJohansson at aol.com
*
In a message dated 97-06-18 01:35:36 EDT,
Stephen_Finch/SSI1.SSI1 at notes-gw.tus.ssi1.com (Stephen Finch/SSI1) writes:

<<I'd like to propose that we move SBP-2 forward by:

1) removing the isoc information, getting the final inclusions accomplished
and then doing the final reviews.

2) request a new project to do SBP-3 whose main function is to add isoc
capabilities.  There maybe things from 1394A as well.>>

I think it is premature to contemplate a change to the scope of the SBP-2
project proposal.

True, work on the isochronous portions has slowed recently. I do not believe
that large delay is going to be introduced. I have been working with
isochronous issues in their various guises for over two years now and believe
that most of the "pieces of the puzzle" for SBP-2 are on the table. I believe
that the seeming lack of progress on isochronous for a few months now is
actually a gestation period that precedes a successful conclusion of our
activities by the fall.

I also do not believe that any other standards efforts or vendor product
plans are going to be adversely impacted if SBP-2 slips its schedule by a few
months. The asynchronous sections are stabilized and require a 2/3 vote of
the plenary to be changed. In the past, the plenary has not been sympathetic
to changes in a stabilized document if either a) they do not demonstrably fix
a technical error or b) they have a negative impact on early adopters of a
draft standard without significant enhancement to the usefulness of the
standard. In short, I think you can rely on the asynchronous portions of
SBP-2 as bedrock.

There is an example of something like this in our past. Although it is a bit
of an embarassment to talk about SCSI-2 lingering as a draft standard for ten
years before approval, I don't believe there was any significant commercial
impact. Needless to say, as editor for the T10 SBP-2 project and as an
individual committed to closure on this work, I don't expect our schedule
slippage to remotely approach this example.

The authorized project proposal mandates that, "A particular need to be
addressed by the SBP-2 project is the definition of facilities to accommodate
isochronous data streams." This is one of the principal raisons d'etre of the
project and should not be deferred lightly. The schedule for forwarding to
dpANS to NCITS is November, 1997. Perhaps someone (like John Lohmeyer) can
clarify whether or not this is the date of the project's first public review.
If it is, I believe that we are substantially on schedule.

I think we would gain little to split SBP-2 at this point and would create
undue and unnecessary effort. I suggest that we review the SBP-2 schedule
later this year, perhaps at the November T10 meetings in Palm Springs, CA.

Regards,

Peter Johansson
Editor, T10 SBP-2 Project

Congruent Software, Inc.
3998 Whittle Avenue
Oakland, CA  94602

(510) 531-5472
(510) 531-2942 FAX

pjohansson at aol.com

*
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com




More information about the T10 mailing list