18-month-old discrepancy in SPC-4

Kevin D Butt kdbutt at us.ibm.com
Wed Sep 22 16:53:14 PDT 2010


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r100922c_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I don't believe those log parameters existed before so the first time they 
exist is in the SPC-4 version that first introduced them.  Given this, I 
vote to leave them the way they were posted - especially since we have 
since had two different version descriptors assigned with these values.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/ 
From:	Ralph Weber <roweber at IEEE.org>
To:	"'t10 at t10.org'" <t10 at t10.org>
Date:	09/22/2010 04:44 PM
Subject:	18-month-old discrepancy in SPC-4
Sent by:	owner-t10 at t10.org
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
  In February 2009 (last year), Gerry Houlder's 09-054r1
was approved (8:0:10) for incorporation in SPC-4. When
the document was incorporated, the proposed Log Parameter
Code values of 0--3 were incremented by one (i.e., 1--4
were incorporated instead of the proposed values) in
SPC-4 r18.
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-054r1.pdf
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r18.pdf
Since I cannot find an explanation or justification for
this change, it must be considered an editorial mistake.
The question now is a little complex. Do we leave the
codes the way they were posted ... or ... do I fix them
as part of incorporating 09-360r9?
A related point is that Version Descriptors have been
assigned to SPC-4 r18 and SPC-4 r23. How this affects
the choice is in the eye of the beholder.
All the best,
.Ralph
*
* 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