Suggestion for the review

pat_thaler at agilent.com pat_thaler at agilent.com
Wed Oct 13 11:24:58 PDT 2004


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* <pat_thaler at agilent.com>
*
I agree with Ralph here. It is very hard to get perfect review of standards drafts. When you put in redundant information, it makes a large draft even larger and harder to review. There is always a chance of the redundant information being incorrect - I've seen this in published standards that do something like what you suggest. 

Those of us who don't have the code tables memorized are much more likely to spot an error in the name of a sense key than one in the sense key hex. (If most of us had the tables memorized there would be no reason to put both down in the standard.) If we put name (hex) everywhere it is highly likely that there will be places where they don't match. 

If there is a table you find you need to reference often, then there are other ways to avoid flipping. Print out the table and stick it to your wall or inside the cover of your document to use as a quick reference card.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]On Behalf Of Ralph
Weber
Sent: Tuesday, 12 October, 2004 4:55 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion for the review


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Okay,

Now suppose that you found this in SPC-3:

  "... shall terminate the READ BUFFER command with
  CHECK CONDITION status, with the sense key set to
  ILLEGAL REQUEST (04h), and the additional sense code
  set to COMMAND SEQUENCE ERROR (10h/00h). If the data
  in the ....

What would you believe? ... The spelled out names?
... or ... The numeric values?

Basically, what is being requested here is for T10 to
introduce hundreds of chances for SPC-3 to be wrong.

Sorry. Forget it! No way!

All PDF viewers have search functions. Cut the text
out of the printed page, paste it in the Find window,
activate the Match Case option, and find the right
value. It works every time.

If that is too much of a nuisance, download
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/drafts/spc3/asc-num.txt
and search that with WordPad or whatever.

Regards,

.Ralph


Burn Alting wrote:

>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* Burn Alting <burn at goldweb.com.au>
>*
>Hi Peoples,
>
>I've been using the scsi standard on and off for about 10 years now,
>implementing both target and initiator code. I understand a review is
>underway. I'd like to make two suggestions
>
>a. Could the actual Additional Sense codes and Qualifiers (ASC/Q) be
>suffixed each time they are referenced ie
>
>"... shall terminate the READ BUFFER command with CHECK CONDITION
>status, with the sense key set to ILLEGAL REQUEST (05h), and the
>additional sense code set to COMMAND SEQUENCE ERROR (2Ch/00h). If the
>data in the ...."
>
>The SPC is getting quite large and having to continually thumb back to
>the ASC/Q tables is a constant annoyance. I think this would be a big
>help to us poor, potentially arthritic fingered, programmers.
>
>b. For any new commands or major changes of an existing command, could a
>concept section be added the the 'Models' chapter of the relevant
>standard explaining both the command and the concept being added/changed
>etc. I suppose one could say this is what the reflector is for but, if
>you think about it, the standard should be the complete reference for
>the programmer.
>
>My two cents worth anyway.
>
>Regards
>
>Burn Alting
>burn at goldweb.com.au
>
>*
>* 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
*
* 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