SAS 1.1 Removed clause 9.2.6.3.3.3.4

George Penokie gop at us.ibm.com
Thu Aug 4 07:38:50 PDT 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* George Penokie <gop at us.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0050482986257053_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"


Bill, 

All the change made in rev 9e are based off the 05-143r4 proposal. I you
look at the second half of that proposal you will see all the changes
are indicated. 

Yes those transitions were intentionally removed, however, transitions
were added so the net effect is identical. The previous sequence was 

-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS2 to ST_TTS4 to ST_TTS2 

the new sequence is: 

-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS4 to ST_TTS2 

The removed step did nothing except determine that the transition was
necessary. The same is true for the other deleted transition. The
previous sequence was: 

-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS2 to ST_TTS6 to ST_TTS2 

the new sequence is: 

-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS6 to ST_TTS2 

There was no change to functionally as a result of this change only how
the function is described. You will find this to be true in many places
throughout the new transport layer state machine description. 

Bye for now,
George Penokie

Dept 2C6  114-2 N212
E-Mail:    gop at us.ibm.com
Internal:  553-5208
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880





"Bill Martin" <bill_martin at sierralogic.com> 
Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org 


08/03/2005 10:01 PM 

To
"Robert Elliot" <elliott at hp.com>, <t10 at t10.org> 

cc

Subject
SAS 1.1 Removed clause 9.2.6.3.3.3.4

	





Rob: 
  
In SAS1.1 rev 9e, the clauses 9.2.6.3.3.3.5 and 9.2.6.3.3.3.7 are
missing, with no explanation of why they were removed.  Existing
implementations use these transitions, and we would like to understand
if this was an accidental deletion, or an intentional removal. 
  
Bill Martin
Sr. Principal Engineer
Standards and Interoperability
Sierra Logic, Inc.
916 772-3658 
916 765-6875 (Cell)
bill_martin at sierralogic.com 
  


--=_alternative 0050482986257053_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Bill,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All the change made in rev 9e are based
off the 05-143r4 proposal. I you look at the second half of that proposal
you will see all the changes are indicated.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes those transitions were intentionally
removed, however, transitions were added so the net effect is identical.
The previous sequence was </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS2 to ST_TTS4 to ST_TTS2</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">the new sequence is:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS4 to ST_TTS2</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The removed step did nothing except
determine that the transition was necessary. The same is true for the other
deleted transition. The previous sequence was:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS2 to ST_TTS6 to ST_TTS2</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">the new sequence is:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-ST_TTS1 to ST_TTS6 to ST_TTS2</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">There was no change to functionally
as a result of this change only how the function is described. You will
find this to be true in many places throughout the new transport layer
state machine description. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Bye for now,<br>
George Penokie<br>
<br>
Dept 2C6 &nbsp;114-2 N212<br>
E-Mail: &nbsp; &nbsp;gop at us.ibm.com<br>
Internal: &nbsp;553-5208<br>
External: 507-253-5208 &nbsp; FAX: 507-253-2880<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Bill Martin"
<bill_martin at sierralogic.com&gt;</b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/03/2005 10:01 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Robert Elliot"
<elliott at hp.com&gt;, <t10 at t10.org&gt;</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">SAS 1.1 Removed clause 9.2.6.3.3.3.4</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Rob:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">&nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">In SAS1.1 rev 9e, the clauses 9.2.6.3.3.3.5
and 9.2.6.3.3.3.7 are missing, with no explanation of why they were removed.
&nbsp;Existing implementations use these transitions, and we would like
to understand if this was an accidental deletion, or an intentional removal.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">&nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Bill Martin<br>
Sr. Principal Engineer<br>
Standards and Interoperability<br>
Sierra Logic, Inc.<br>
916 772-3658</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">916 765-6875 (Cell)<br>
bill_martin at sierralogic.com</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font>
<br>
--=_alternative 0050482986257053_=--





More information about the T10 mailing list