stds-1394: RE: SBP-2 Study Group
PJohansson at acm.org
Fri Aug 11 00:16:47 PDT 2000
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Peter Johansson <PJohansson at ACM.org>
At 10:22 AM 8/10/00, Atsushi Nakamura wrote:
>If it is decided that work is done on a peer to peer SBP-2, I would like
>to see the outcome
>1) not be "yet another protocol", and it remains "SBP-2" as we see it today
>2) does not sacrifice the effeciency and simpleness it has today as a
>Though it would be ideal if SBP-2 can handle both, it would not be worth
>much if too much burden (inclucing compatibility) is put on the original
>protocol, or significant changes are required for the new protocol which
>results in something drastically different from what we have now.
It's hard to predict, in advance, how much interest there will be in an
SBP-2 that is more peer-to-peer than the present. I think draft standard
IEEE P1394.3 has done a pretty good job of enabling more symmetric
connections between two SBP-2 devices, no matter which one is the initiator
and which the target. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say that
PPDT could have been a natural part of SBP-2---but now that it has been
done as an add-on standard, would it be worthwhile to insert it into SBP-2?
If there are other ideas to explore about SBP-2 and peer-to-peer, that's
one thing that study group time is for.
I understand your points, Ats, that there is a legacy base to consider
whenever any modifications are made to an extant protocol. I don't think
they should impede "brainstorming", else one might prematurely shut the
door on new ideas. But once interesting new ideas have been created, they
have to be subject to careful examination. And I think your concerns would
be part of any thorough review.
Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 527-3856 FAX
PJohansson at ACM.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