SSC-2: Discussion of Merits for another Letter Ballot

John Lohmeyer lohmeyer at
Tue Nov 12 08:10:06 PST 2002

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at>

Your understanding of the process is close, but I would like to point out that anyone may submit comments during the public review period, not just "INCITS companies".

The INCITS rules only require the first T10 forwarding be done by the letter ballot voting method (already done) and later, after the public review, require that INCITS approval be done by letter ballot. The other votes may be conducted by a meeting vote.

At this point in the process, T10 needs to vote on approving the T10 letter ballot resolution. This vote is usually done at a T10 meeting, but could be done by letter ballot. While SSC-2 has changed substantially as a result of the T10 letter ballot, that does not mean we need to vote by letter ballot.

There are three ways to make this vote be conducted by letter ballot:

1) The T10 Chair may decide to issue a letter ballot;
2) Five T10 member companies may petition the T10 Chair to issue a letter ballot; or
3) T10 may vote (by simple majority) to request that the T10 Chair issue a letter ballot.

I rarely issue discretionary letter ballots because letter ballots are almost always the slowest way to vote. Also, letter ballots cause a huge amount of work for the Project Editor because of the formal comments resolution process.

I am unconvinced that the SSC-2 letter ballot resolution vote needs to be conducted by letter ballot, so that leaves you with methods 2 or 3.

I should point out that you have several more opportunities to comment on SSC-2 before it is approved:

1) The first T10 letter ballot is not yet approved, so you can participate on the SSC-2 working group;
2) The SSC-2 public review will be open to comments from anyone, including T10 members;
3) Since IBM is a member of INCITS, you may submit an INCITS letter ballot comment through your INCITS member, Ron Silletti.

PS: The INCITS rules do not address the T10 reflector. While I encourage open processes, it is not essential to copy the T10 reflector on all of the letter ballot resolution emails.

At 11/11/2002 03:11 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
>* 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 

John Lohmeyer                  Email: lohmeyer at
LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7183
Colo Spgs, CO 80907

* 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