00-269r1 -- CDB Structure Rewrite

Ralph Weber ralphoweber at CompuServe.COM
Wed Oct 25 19:38:11 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <ralphoweber at compuserve.com>
*
Gene,

If somebody brings in a proposal for encryption changes in SPC-2
and gets a 2/3's vote approving them before the letter ballot
resolution is complete (January 2001 at the earliest), then
the comment resolution changes will be reversed.  And if the
changes are not reversed in SPC-2, I'm sure nobody will object
to holding some of those reserved bytes for encryption in SPC-3.

Thanks.

Ralph...

Gene.Milligan at seagate.com wrote:

>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
> *
>
> I do not know if I have already replied to this note but:
>
> In principal I agree with this resolution to the comment. But I am not sure
> what impact it has on other command documents that have already used the
> variable length CDB. In the case of OSD there seems to be a significant
> desire to use encryption. However that is not necessarilly an objection to
> the comment resolution since there has been objections raised that a single
> byte was not adequate to specify encryption information.
>
> Gene
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.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 mailing list