SSC-2: Discussion of Merits for another Letter Ballot

Pat LaVarre LAVARRE at iomega.com
Tue Nov 12 08:17:36 PST 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
*
> Our resolution discussions have not been shared with
> the reflector (our correspondence has only been
> between 8 companies, the eighth company added only
> recently).

This item you can choose to fix or not among
yourselves alone? If everyone who participated agrees,
make the record public, else don't?

I thought I should write to say I'd at least glance
over this, if you posted this.  By the usual calculus
of Usenet, that means ten other people feel the same
without having bothered to say so out loud? I presume
t10.org would be happy to host such a posting.

To put more time than that into tape, myself I'd have
to be convinced that yet again the reports of the
death of consume tape have been greatly exaggerated.

Phase Relationships in the Standardization Process [Gosling 1990]
http://java.sun.com/people/jag/StandardsPhases/index.html
for example, can be read as arguing that the very stability of:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/drafts/ssc2/ssc2r08e.pdf
is evidence of the death of tape.

Pat LaVarre

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Kevin D Butt [mailto:kdbutt at us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Mon 11/11/2002 3:11 PM 
	To: t10 at t10.org 
	Cc: Erich Oetting; Joe Breher; Michael Banther; Paul Suhler; Paul Entzel; Tuong Vu; Dave Peterson 
	Subject: SSC-2: Discussion of Merits for another Letter Ballot
	
	

	* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
	* "Kevin D Butt" <kdbutt at us.ibm.com>
	*
	
	SSC-2 Working Group,
	
	You all know that I have been advocating for another letter ballot for
	SSC-2.  I am aware that there is a desire to complete the work and move on
	to other activities.  I certainly agree that it would be nice to put this
	thing to rest and move on, but I am uneasy about doing this.  Perhaps the
	issue is that I have not gone through this process before and I am
	expecting too much.
	
	As I understand the process, once we resolve the Letter Ballot comments, we
	forward the document to INCITS.  INCITS then sends the document out for
	public review and INCITS companies have an opportunity to comment.  If any
	NO votes are received, the document is sent back to T10 for resolution.  If
	any public review comments were made, T10 will forward the resolutions and
	any document changes to INCITS again.  Another public review will be held.
	When public review is done, it goes through some formalities and becomes a
	completed standard.
	
	This leads me to believe that if there are problems with the standard that
	we want addressed the best place to do it is before we forward it to
	INCITS.
	
	I would like to discuss the issues with SSC-2 that are bothering me, and
	see if I can be convinced that we do not need another letter ballot.
	Perhaps an SSC-3 can sufficiently respond to the issues I currently have:
	1.  Our resolution discussions have not been shared with the reflector (our
	correspondence has only been between 8 companies, the eighth company added
	only recently).  Only our responses to actual letter ballot comments have
	been made available to the community at large.
	2.  We have changed the Explicit Address State Machine to the extent that
	we have removed an entire state - while I agree this simplifies things, it
	seems to be a significant and substantive change.
	3.  We have changed the entire document by replacing Logical Block Address
	with Logical Object Identifier. - While this appears on the surface to be
	an editorial change intended for clarification, it has touched large
	portions of the document.  Has the intent of the previous text been
	inadvertently changed?  (Logical Block having a different meaning than the
	'Logical Block' in Logical Block Address)
	4.  We are trying to clarify the INFORMATION field and what it reports on
	non-WRITE commands that fail for deferred errors.  This will certainly
	effect a wide audience.  I do not believe that all the different
	manufactures have implemented this the same way.
	
	Thanks,
	
	Kevin D. Butt
	Fibre Channel & SCSI Architect
	IBM Tape Microcode,
	6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ  85744
	Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-2869, Fax: 799-4138, Email:
	kdbutt at us.ibm.com
	
	
	*
	* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
	* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
	

*
* 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