MMC-x meant where MMC-2 said
LAVARRE at iomega.com
Fri Feb 14 07:58:13 PST 2003
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
> MMC-2 was the published standard when SPC-2 was
> proposed for standardization in a T10 letter ballot.
I read this to mean everyone knows we plan to revise
the table of which PDT means which standard, when we
propose SPC-3 for standardisation in a T10 letter
ballot. Is that what you meant?
> > http://www.t10.org/scsi-3.htm
> > ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/drafts/spc3/spc3r11.pdf
> MMC-x cannot be used in a dpANS because it is not
> a precise reference to a published standard.
As I glance over the rest of spc3r11 table 57 I see
cross-references to: SBC SSC SSC SPC-2 SBC MMC-2 SBC
SMC SCC-2 SES RBC OCRW.
Why do only SPC MMC SCC have to say -x?
Does the absence of -x somehow implicitly mean -1?
Now that I look, I see in that .htm also the absence
of -x is there used to mean "-1".
I'd say PDT x05 means any past or current flavour of
MMC. Today maybe that is draft MMC-4, or standard
MMC-3 or MMC-2 or MMC or SCSI 2 Chapter 14 or SCSI 1
Surely this reality is not in dispute?
You're telling me this is a truth we can't admit in
a dpANS standard? We have to pretend PDT x05 means
only a set of published standards?
> For the purposes of standards development, letter
> ballot is the only time when nits such as this
> need to be or should be considered.
Oh, sorry, I should have mentioned, I'm relaying this
question from an anonymous newbie, merely because I
honestly don't know the answer, personally I never
cared if that part of that paper standard made sense
if read literally.
* 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