SPC-4 LB Timestamp proposal posted

Ralph Weber roweber at ieee.org
Fri May 3 18:08:31 PDT 2013


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Gerry,
Thank you for this input. I have resolved the concern by adding a cross 
reference to table 57 in the sentence that defines the timestamp origin 
field in the REPORT TIMESTAMP command.
A revision that contains this change will be discussed in Bellevue.
All the best,
.Ralph
On 5/3/2013 1:25 PM, Gerry Houlder wrote:
> I think you need to retain the title of table 57 as "TIMESTAMP ORIGIN 
> field". This is because text under table 311 refers to this clause as 
> defining the TIMESTAMP ORIGIN field.
>
> Alternatively, move table 57 to follow table 311, so that the 
> TIMESTAMP ORIGIN field definition follow right after it is needed. In 
> this case, your text in blue that refers to table 57 would refer to 
> the new table number in the new location.
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org 
> > wrote:
>
>     * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org <mailto:t10 at t10.org>),
>     posted by:
>     * Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org >
>     *
>     I have posted a rewrite of the Timestamps (nee Device clocks)
>     model for review next week..
>
>     http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-133r0.pdf
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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