SBP-2 Editorial Comment Resolution

PJohansson at PJohansson at
Mon Feb 16 12:45:37 PST 1998

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* PJohansson at
In a message dated 98-02-16 14:20:57 EST, Gene_Milligan at

<<Regarding GEM 50: But the point was that the notation appears to violate the
stated convention.>>

I missed the point of the comment; I did not understand that it was aimed at
3.2.1. Taking my cue from Humpty-Dumpty, I've added "When the subscript is
unnecessary to disambiguate the base of the number it may be omitted."


Peter Johansson
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at

More information about the T10 mailing list