How things can go wrong when new proposal are incorporated during Letter Ballot

Ralph O. Weber roweber at
Sun Mar 6 17:30:29 PST 2005

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "Ralph O. Weber" <roweber at>
What follows in a poster-child case for why new proposals
should not be incorporated during Letter Ballot.

04-271r4 failed to define the TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH
field in violation of the T10 custom regarding such matters.

While incorporating 04-271r4 in SPC-3 r21d, I added a field
definition, but it is incorrect.

Now, I am going to fix the definition in the next SPC-3
revision and this e-mail message is the only record of
the change. I cannot write a late Letter Ballot comment
because there is no text in SPC-3 r21 to reference.

Do not be surprised when new proposals for SPC-3 get
the fifth degree this week.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	cut and paste error in SPC3r21d
Date: 	Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:15:56 -0700
From: 	Paul Entzel <Paul.Entzel at>
To: 	'ROWeber at' <ROWeber at>

Ralph, I was just reviewing some stuff in SPC-3, revision 21d and found 
a cut and paste error.  On page 219, the paragraph immediately below 
table 169:

 The TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH field indicates the length in bytes 
of the list of target port groups.

I went back and looked at the original proposal (04-271r4) and it did 
not have a definition of this field.  I think the definition should be 
something like this:

The TIMESTAMP PARAMETER DATA LENGTH specifies the number of bytes of 
parameter data that follow. 

I borrowed this description from the PRIORITY PARAMETER DATA LENGTH 
field description on page 208.

Paul Entzel


* 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