[T10] Tape Stream Miroring incorporation into SPC-5 r11 feedback ... "shall direct"

Ralph Weber roweber at ieee.org
Mon Aug 8 11:02:55 PDT 2016


Kevin,

I am amenable to resolving your issue but I cannot see how to do it.

In SPC-5 r11, the sentence to be changed reads:

"... the copy manager shall and device server shall ..."

If, as proposed, the first shall is removed, then the text will read:

"... the copy manager and device server shall ..."

which to my eye appears to be exactly the same is the r11 second 
sentence in the paragraph, i.e.,

"... the copy manager and device server shall ..."

I cannot find the "the" that is supposed to be removed.

All the best,

.Ralph


On 8/8/2016 11:56 AM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I support not using the word "direct" for the reasons you stated. Your 
> proposed solution, "the copy manager and the device server shall" is 
> slightly different from the last sentence which is, "the copy manager 
> and device server" (i.e., the is only one "the" in use). I may be 
> being a little finical, but using a "the" in both "the copy manager" 
> and "the device server" seems to emphasize that they are two separate 
> and distinct entities, whereas using "the copy manager and device 
> server" does not as strongly indicate they are different and distinct. 
> In fact, they may be the same.
>
> Maybe I am just being picky, but those are my thoughts. I think your 
> intent would be met by using the exact phrase in the last sentence, 
> "the copy manager and device server" instead of "the copy manager and 
> the device server".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, CAMSS
> T10 Standards
> 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: Dennis Appleyard <dennis.appleyard at oracle.com>, Kevin D 
> Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS, curtis.ballard at hpe.com, Darryl Torske 
> <darryl.torske at quantum.com>, "T10 org (t10 at t10.org)" <t10 at t10.org>
> Date: 08/08/2016 02:57
> Subject: Re: Tape Stream Miroring incorporation into SPC-5 r11 
> feedback ... "shall direct"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Regarding the discussion of "the copy manager shall and the device 
> server shall" detailed below ...
>
> The change currently identified for inclusion in SPC-5 r12 is to 
> delete the first shall.
>
> This particular change has several advantages.
>
>   * It is one of the changes proposed during the discussion of the
>     comment reproduced below.
>   * As a one-word change, it is the smallest possible change mentioned
>     during the discussion.
>   * The change seems to address the oldest outstanding comment, i.e.,
>     "something is missing".
>   * The resulting text identically matches the last sentence in the
>     cited paragraph, and that sentence generated no comments.
>
> The suggestion that the original text be reinstated deserves a 
> response, and that response follows.
>
> There are substantial risks associated with asking any T10 editor to 
> incorporate the first-ever usage of a particular word, and this was 
> the initial problem with the phrase "the copy  manager shall direct 
> the device server to".
>
> Today, the word "direct" is **never** used as a verb in SPC-5. The 
> only SPC-5 usage of "direct" is in compound names, e.g., direct-access 
> block device and direct access memory.
>
> A recourse to non-traditional phrasing typically masks an attempt to 
> violate some long-standing precept of SCSI standards. With this alert 
> in mind, finding the technical flaw in the original text becomes a 
> cakewalk.
>
> Great effort has been expended throughout SAM-x and SPC-x to avoid 
> defining the details of interactions between copy managers and device 
> servers. For many years, the goal has been to achieve the greatest 
> possible flexibility of copy manager product designs. Generally 
> speaking, minimizing explicit requirements on inside-the-device 
> interactions has been used to achieve this goal.
>
> This decision became the agreed practice after a half-day debate over 
> whether commands flow through the device server to the copy manager or 
> go directly to the copy manager. Eventually, it became obvious that 
> the choices were silence on the subject or using the lunch hour to 
> setup a mud wrestling pit between the head tables.
>
> As a defense against future letter ballot comments, therefore, the 
> editor respectfully insists that the only way to restore the original 
> wording is through a CAP-approved proposal which makes only that 
> change. Should this event come to pass, the proposal's number (and the 
> vote tally approving it) will be noted for inclusion in responses to 
> the all-but-certain letter ballot comments on the sole use of the 
> "direct" verb in SPC-5.
>
> All the best,
>
> .Ralph
>
>
> On 8/3/2016 9:32 PM, Dennis Appleyard wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the review.
> My comments are inline below.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 8/1/2016 1:09 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
> Ralph, Dennis, and all,
>
> <snip>
> *
> Strictly incorporation issues:*
> <snip>
>
> On page 281, fourth paragraph, "then the <<copy manager shall and 
> device server shall>>establish a
> deferred error condition with CHECK CONDITION status" I think there is 
> something wrong with "copy manager shall and device server shall" The 
> device server is the one to establish a deferred error. The copy 
> manager has a requirement to terminate the copy operation which was 
> just stated prior to the then, so what does the copy manager need to 
> do here? I think, perhaps, the "copy manager shall and" should be 
> deleted, but perhaps there was intent to have something here.
> I suggest changing to "then the copy  manager shall direct the device 
> server to establish a deferred error condition" This was the wording 
> in the proposal.
> *
> Other issues:*
> <snip>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20160808/2a3c87c0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the T10 mailing list