Obsolete mixed command and data, mixed data and response

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Wed Nov 18 08:26:35 PST 1998

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Doug wrote: <<I agree with Gene that the recent wholesale effort to
eliminate "obsolete" or "unused" functions from established standards is an
objectionable practise.>>

     It is kind of Doug to agree but I fear I am being damned by kindness.
I agree with the thrust of Doug's comments but think he has inadvertently
twisted my position. My view is that we need to be careful when we obsolete
an item. Firstly we need to seek input from those that are known to have
implemented the item or if unknown to solicit information on usage.
Secondly we need to have provided an improved alternative which
accommodates the needs of the functionality. Thirdly we need to be
receptive to reasons the function can not migrate to the improved

     But I do not find it objectionable to propose that an item be made
obsolete while addressing the three needs above. READ 6 was an example of a
bonafide proposal for obsolescence and which subsequently failed to pass
muster on the three needs above (although perhaps it could pass them by


* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com

More information about the T10 mailing list