SSC-2: Discussion of Merits for another Letter Ballot

Kevin D Butt kdbutt at
Mon Nov 11 14:11:54 PST 2002

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "Kevin D Butt" <kdbutt at>

SSC-2 Working Group,

You all know that I have been advocating for another letter ballot for
SSC-2.  I am aware that there is a desire to complete the work and move on
to other activities.  I certainly agree that it would be nice to put this
thing to rest and move on, but I am uneasy about doing this.  Perhaps the
issue is that I have not gone through this process before and I am
expecting too much.

As I understand the process, once we resolve the Letter Ballot comments, we
forward the document to INCITS.  INCITS then sends the document out for
public review and INCITS companies have an opportunity to comment.  If any
NO votes are received, the document is sent back to T10 for resolution.  If
any public review comments were made, T10 will forward the resolutions and
any document changes to INCITS again.  Another public review will be held.
When public review is done, it goes through some formalities and becomes a
completed standard.

This leads me to believe that if there are problems with the standard that
we want addressed the best place to do it is before we forward it to

I would like to discuss the issues with SSC-2 that are bothering me, and
see if I can be convinced that we do not need another letter ballot.
Perhaps an SSC-3 can sufficiently respond to the issues I currently have:
1.  Our resolution discussions have not been shared with the reflector (our
correspondence has only been between 8 companies, the eighth company added
only recently).  Only our responses to actual letter ballot comments have
been made available to the community at large.
2.  We have changed the Explicit Address State Machine to the extent that
we have removed an entire state - while I agree this simplifies things, it
seems to be a significant and substantive change.
3.  We have changed the entire document by replacing Logical Block Address
with Logical Object Identifier. - While this appears on the surface to be
an editorial change intended for clarification, it has touched large
portions of the document.  Has the intent of the previous text been
inadvertently changed?  (Logical Block having a different meaning than the
'Logical Block' in Logical Block Address)
4.  We are trying to clarify the INFORMATION field and what it reports on
non-WRITE commands that fail for deferred errors.  This will certainly
effect a wide audience.  I do not believe that all the different
manufactures have implemented this the same way.


Kevin D. Butt
Fibre Channel & SCSI Architect
IBM Tape Microcode,
6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ  85744
Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-2869, Fax: 799-4138, Email:
kdbutt at

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

More information about the T10 mailing list