RBC isn't from Pat

Pat LaVarre LAVARRE at iomega.com
Thu Mar 20 11:35:39 PST 2003

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Pat LaVarre" <LAVARRE at iomega.com>
By the way, as a point of personal privilege ...

Offline I was told people have been saying RBC came from Pat.

Not true.

Three points in my defence:

1) Yes the RWFL bits came from Pat et al.  Last I
checked, those bits never made it into any merely
public standard.  Last I checked, this lack is still
causing real trouble in the real world: Windows works
best when we pretend insert & eject don't take time.

2) Rumour - or baseless slander - says RBC suffers
|from the kind of binary incompatibilities designed
into the SFF vs. ANSI vs. USB Boot redefinitions of
SCSI CDB's and data.  As far as I know, I have never
created and I have never willingly perpetuated any
such incompatiblities.

The fact that I don't know how binary incompatible RBC
is or is not testifies to me not knowing it well
enough to have invented it.

3) Thinking that mode page 5 contained C:H:S was my

Mode page 5 contains H:S:C instead, of course.
"Everybody [but newbies who read nothing but merely
public specs] knows that."  I have NO IDEA why.

Me, when first I saw that the page did not contain
C:H:S, I somehow got the idea it contained precisely
the field-reversed S:H:C rather than the one-field
left-rotation H:S:C.

Because, back then, I had never disassembled a
standard Microsoft Lba 0, I didn't understand why a
SCSI device wanted a PC C:H:S geometry anyhow, so when
I saw H:S = x20:40 for 100e+6 B, I didn't know at a
glance how wrong that was.

I was also innocent of the legacy that says maxH:maxS
is xFF:3F, so again x20:40 is wrong at a glance.  As
far as I know, that legacy has never seen the light of
a merely public standard either.

Happy Thursday, Pat LaVarre

* 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