The assignment of ASC/ASCQ code values

Ralph O. Weber ralphoweber at CompuServe.COM
Tue Jan 18 04:03:30 PST 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ralph O. Weber" <ralphoweber at compuserve.com>
*
I disagree with the following statements regarding ASC/ASCQ assignments
found in a recent T10 Reflector posting:

}  -  There is no guidance on use of these ASC/ASCQs in SPC-2

It seems pretty clear to me that T10 assigns ASC/ASCQ code values.  In the
past, T10 has processed 1-page proposal documents containing nothing more
than two or three ASC/ASCQ assignments.

} ... that (the assignment of code values) was deemed to belong in the 
} individual command set documents, e.g., SSC.

If this statement were true, then for example, the SSC and MMC working 
groups could concurrently assign the same ASC/ASCQ code pairs to have 
totally different meanings.  As of this writing, not one ASC/ASCQ code
pair has differing meanings for differing device types, a precedent that
will not be broken.

Furthermore, some T10 committee members believe that command set documents
are required to identify ASC/ASCQ codes ONLY by their description string
names, i.e., command set documents shall not contain ASC/ASCQ code values.
Thus, command set documents cannot assign ASC/ASCQ code values because
the only place the values can appear is SPC-x, which means that any 
ASC/ASCQ assignment is a change proposal for SPC-x.

In the past, I have supported the concept that showing ASC/ASCQ code
values in command set standards is a convenience to implementers that
T10 should permit.  However, if that concept is going to be perverted
into a free for all of ASC/ASCQ code value assignments, I will quickly
join the letter ballot commenters blocking exit from T10 of any standard
other than SPC-x containing ASC/ASCQ code values.

Thanks.

Ralph...


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




More information about the T10 mailing list