On withdrawing RMC, project T10/1364D

[Bmcferrin at aol.com]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Bmcferrin at aol.com
*

--part1_70.a69e5f5.282b04ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Members: 
We proposed the Reduced Multimedia Commands (RMC) about 2 years ago for
the 
purpose of reducing the complexity of Multimedia devices and potentially

affecting cost in a positive way.  At the time, MMC-1 was new and MMC-2
was 
in development and seemed burdensome.  We now believe that it is best to

withdraw the RMC project. 

MMC-2 is now a formal standard and its use has been moderated as devices

became less complex than allowed or expected according to MMC-2.  MMC-2 
compliance has become a requirement by many, making RMC a much hardwe
sell.   
Furthermore, other methods have been used for reducing the cost of MMC 
devices without modifying the command set. 

We now believe that RMC would have at best a small following and would 
ultimately violate its goal of device cost reduction by increasing cost
on 
account of low volumes.  Proceeding with RMC is a waste of time that is 
beeter spent on MMC-4. 

Thank you, 
Bill McFerrin, 
Chair, T10 MMC WG 


--part1_70.a69e5f5.282b04ed_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Members: 
We proposed the Reduced Multimedia Commands (RMC) about 2 years ago for the 
purpose of reducing the complexity of Multimedia devices and potentially 
affecting cost in a positive way.  At the time, MMC-1 was new and MMC-2 was 
in development and seemed burdensome.  We now believe that it is best to 
withdraw the RMC project. 

MMC-2 is now a formal standard and its use has been moderated as devices 
became less complex than allowed or expected according to MMC-2.  MMC-2 
compliance has become a requirement by many, making RMC a much hardwe sell.   
Furthermore, other methods have been used for reducing the cost of MMC 
devices without modifying the command set. 

We now believe that RMC would have at best a small following and would 
ultimately violate its goal of device cost reduction by increasing cost on 
account of low volumes.  Proceeding with RMC is a waste of time that is 
beeter spent on MMC-4. 

Thank you, 
Bill McFerrin, 
Chair, T10 MMC WG 


--part1_70.a69e5f5.282b04ed_boundary--