Problem with 10-325r6

Penokie, George George.Penokie at lsi.com
Tue Nov 16 06:13:20 PST 2010


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
David,
The concept of "storage" is not in SAM. So you suggested rewrite still does
not cut it. However, I see no problem with deleting item b) altogether.
I will write a proposal to do that.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: david.black at emc.com [mailto:david.black at emc.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 6:18 PM
To: Penokie, George; t10 at t10.org
Cc: Bill.Martin at emulex.com; david.black at emc.com
Subject: RE: Problem with 10-356r6 
George,
To begin with, the proposal involved is actually 10-325r6.
The suggested rewrite breaks a key aspect of 10-325 - the intent has always
been to allow I/O to data when the amount of data involved is small (e.g., an
older version of 10-325 referred to "a capacity that is too small for most
practical uses").  Therefore the suggested rewrite is not acceptable.
An acceptable rewrite would be:
	b) shall not support access to user data (see SPC-4) for the purpose
of user data storage; and
While I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this after-the-fact revision, an
alternative approach of deleting item b) might also solve the problem, as
that would result in sweeping "access to user data" under the proverbial
"carpet" of item c):
	c) may support other features only for the purposes of device
management.
thereby avoiding the temptation of viewing the "for the purpose of" language
in the rewritten item b) as superfluous.
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
George
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:55 PM
> To: T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org)
> Cc: Black, David; Bill.Martin at Emulex.Com
> Subject: Problem with 10-356r6
> 
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> *
> In the process of incorporating 10-356r6 (SAM-5 and FCP-4: Management
Logical Units) I have
> encountered a problem that needs attention.
> 
> In the proposal the following statement is intended to describe what a
management logical unit does:
> 
> A management logical unit:
> a) shall support access to management functionality;
> b) shall not support access to stored data for the purpose of general data
storage; and
> c) may support other features only for the purposes of device management.
> 
> The problem is that item be uses terms (specifically: stored data and
general data storage) that are
> not defined in SAM (or anywhere else in the SCSI standards). That has to be
resolved. I suggest item
> b) be rewritten as:
> 
> b) shall not manage I/O requests that require access to user data (see
SPC-4); and
> 
> A new revision of SAM-5 is on hold until this is resolved.
> 
> Bye for now,
> George Penokie
> 
> LSI Corporation
> 3033 41st St. NW
> Suite 100
> Rochester, MN 55901
> 
> 507-328-9017
> george.penokie at lsi.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