<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<tt>Regarding the discussion of "the copy manager shall and the
device server shall" detailed below ...<br>
<br>
The change currently identified for inclusion in SPC-5 r12 is to
delete the first shall.<br>
<br>
This particular change has several advantages.<br>
</tt>
<ul>
<li><tt>It is one of the changes proposed during the discussion of
the comment reproduced below.</tt></li>
<li><tt>As a one-word change, it is the smallest possible change
mentioned during the discussion.</tt></li>
<li><tt>The change seems to address the oldest outstanding
comment, i.e., "something is missing".<br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>The resulting text identically matches the last sentence
in the cited paragraph, and that sentence generated no
comments.<br>
</tt></li>
</ul>
<tt>The suggestion that the original text be reinstated deserves a
response, and that response follows.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
Today, the word "direct" is <b>*never*</b> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
.Ralph</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/3/2016 9:32 PM, Dennis Appleyard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:80ac4280-bd27-eb91-34ad-27205e10c680@oracle.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Kevin,</p>
Thanks for the review.<br>
My comments are inline below.
<p>Dennis<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/1/2016 1:09 PM, Kevin D Butt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:OF9351050A.D8B5DB0A-ON07258002.006680BC-07258002.00693C02@notes.na.collabserv.com"
type="cite"><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Ralph, Dennis, and
all,</font><br>
<br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><snip></font><br>
<br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>Strictly incorporation
issues:</b></font><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><snip></font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:OF9351050A.D8B5DB0A-ON07258002.006680BC-07258002.00693C02@notes.na.collabserv.com"
type="cite"><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2">On page 281, fourth paragraph,
"</font><font face="ArialMT" size="2">then the </font><font
face="ArialMT" color="blue" size="2"><<copy manager
shall and device server shall>></font><font
face="ArialMT" size="2">establish a</font><br>
<font face="ArialMT" size="2">deferred error condition with
CHECK CONDITION status</font><font face="sans-serif" size="2">"
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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="2">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.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:OF9351050A.D8B5DB0A-ON07258002.006680BC-07258002.00693C02@notes.na.collabserv.com"
type="cite"><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>Other issues:</b></font><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><snip></font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>