18-month-old discrepancy in SPC-4

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Thu Sep 23 07:43:53 PDT 2010


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1009230_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I believe the parameter codes must be restored to the values that were in
the accepted proposal. My company implemented those values based on its
acceptance by the T10 group. I apologize for not noticing the editorial
error earlier, but if you want the parameters changed to 1 through 4 then a
new proposal should be required.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Kevin D Butt <kdbutt at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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