RBC Amendment 1
PJohansson at acm.org
Mon Feb 24 17:35:54 PST 2003
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Peter Johansson <PJohansson at ACM.org>
I think RBC Amendment 1 could benefit from a few changes. Specifically:
1) Provide a redrawn table 3---don't compel the user to construct his or
her own from verbal editing instructions. The revised instructions in the
amendment should read something like, "Replace existing table 3 in clause
5.1 with the table below."
2) In the same spirit, provide a redrawn table 17. The revised instructions
might read, "Replace existing table 17 in clause 6.2 with the table below."
3) Do not add a separate clause 6.2.2; describe the PARAMETER LIST LENGTH
field in the body of clause 6.2. This follows the editorial style of the
rest of RBC (see, for example, cause 6.1 and the description of bits and
fields in INQUIRY data). The editing instructions could read, "Insert the
following paragraph as the second paragraph immediately after table 17 in
4) The NACA bit is referenced in the sixth paragraph of the clause not the
fifth as suggested both by Ben Atkinson's comments and the amendment.
Better editorial instructions would be, "In the fifth paragraph after table
16, replace the reference to table 15 with a reference to table 16."
5) With respect to the last paragraph in clause 6.1, I don't think
correcting the grammar of the sentence (verb agreement) addresses Ben
Atkinson's fundamental confusion. I suggest the last paragraph be replaced
the following: "Consult SPC-2 for the meaning and usage of bits and fields
in the INQUIRY command that are not defined by this standard. Logical unit
support for these other bits and fields may be mandatory or optional, as
specified by SPC-2."
Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 527-3856 FAX
PJohansson at ACM.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