[T10] Tape Stream Miroring incorporation into SPC-5 r11 feedback ... "shall direct"
dennis.appleyard at oracle.com
Mon Aug 8 19:01:11 PDT 2016
I agree with your reasoning and solution.
Ralph Weber wrote:
> 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,
> On 8/8/2016 11:56 AM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
>> 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".
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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,
>> On 8/3/2016 9:32 PM, Dennis Appleyard wrote:
>> Thanks for the review.
>> My comments are inline below.
>> On 8/1/2016 1:09 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
>> Ralph, Dennis, and all,
>> Strictly incorporation issues:*
>> 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:*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the T10