Late SPC-3 Comment: Reserve/Release for SSC-2

Roger Cummings roger.cummings at veritas.com
Fri Feb 18 12:09:01 PST 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Roger Cummings <roger.cummings at veritas.com>
*
Paul,

I agree this is a problem, but I'm not sure your proposed solution helps
very much. The issue as far as I'm concerned is that the four RELEASE(6,10)
and RESERVE(6,10) commands are not defined at all in SSC-2, and therefore
any reference (either mandatory or obsolete) to them in relation to SSC-2 in
in Table D.2 of SPC-3 is likely to cause confusion.

Actually, isn't SPC-2 and SSC what we want people to use to decide if they
need to implement these commands? That is, if they want to claim "backwards
compatibility" with those standards then they need to support RESERVE &
RELEASE.

I note that, in Table 42 on PDF page 120, Z is not defined as obsolete, but
rather as "Command implementation is defined in a previous standard", and
the Command Name for the opcodes in question is listed as "obsolete". It
would seem to me that Table D.2 would be clearer if the something like the
same practice was followed there. A Z in the column for SSC-2 would then
mean "see SSC", which is what we probably want. The description column could
then be "obsolete (defined in SPC-2)".

Regards,




Roger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]On Behalf Of
> Paul.A.Suhler at certance.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 8:28 PM
> To: roweber at IEEE.org
> Cc: t10 at t10.org
> Subject: Late SPC-3 Comment: Reserve/Release for SSC-2
> 
> 
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Paul.A.Suhler at certance.com
> *
> Hi, Ralph.
> 
> This is a request to accept a late letter ballot comment for SPC-3.
> 
> SPC-3 rev 21c, Table D.2 (PDF pages 425 and 427) shows that the four
> RELEASE(6,10) and RESERVE(6,10) commands are listed as M 
> (mandatory) for
> sequential access devices and cites SSC-2.  There's nothing 
> in SSC-2 that
> even refers to these commands by name, much less makes them 
> mandatory.  It
> looks like this slipped through review.  One company used the 
> SPC-2 version
> of this table in deciding which commands were mandatory for sequential
> devices, rather than using SSC.  I'd hate for this to 
> propagate, and thus
> would like to see it fixed in SPC-3.
> 
> Suggested change:
> 
> Change "M" to "Z" (obsolete) for each command for the T - 
> SEQUENTIAL ACCESS
> DEVICE (SSC-2) column.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> Paul Suhler
> Firmware Engineer
> Quantum Corporation
> 1650 Sunflower Avenue
> Costa Mesa, California  92626
> (714) 641-2485 (voice)
> (714) 966-7328 (fax)
> paul.a.suhler at certance.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