How things can go wrong when new proposal are incorporated during Letter Ballot
Ralph O. Weber
roweber at IEEE.org
Sun Mar 6 17:30:29 PST 2005
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ralph O. Weber" <roweber at ieee.org>
What follows in a poster-child case for why new proposals
should not be incorporated during Letter Ballot.
04-271r4 failed to define the TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH
field in violation of the T10 custom regarding such matters.
While incorporating 04-271r4 in SPC-3 r21d, I added a field
definition, but it is incorrect.
Now, I am going to fix the definition in the next SPC-3
revision and this e-mail message is the only record of
the change. I cannot write a late Letter Ballot comment
because there is no text in SPC-3 r21 to reference.
Do not be surprised when new proposals for SPC-3 get
the fifth degree this week.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: cut and paste error in SPC3r21d
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:15:56 -0700
From: Paul Entzel <Paul.Entzel at quantum.com>
To: 'ROWeber at IEEE.org' <ROWeber at IEEE.org>
Ralph, I was just reviewing some stuff in SPC-3, revision 21d and found
a cut and paste error. On page 219, the paragraph immediately below
The TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH field indicates the length in bytes
of the list of target port groups.
I went back and looked at the original proposal (04-271r4) and it did
not have a definition of this field. I think the definition should be
something like this:
The TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH specifies the number of bytes of
parameter data that follow.
I borrowed this description from the PRIORITY PARAMETER DATA LENGTH
field description on page 208.
* 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