Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8

David Walp David.Walp at
Wed Nov 1 15:03:25 PST 2006

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* David Walp <David.Walp at>
Hi Katata-san,
Thank you for taking your time in making this proposal.
If I understand correctly, a initial version of this proposal was
discussed at the last Mt Fuji meeting.	Ravinder Thind from Microsoft
was in attendance at that meeting and he expressed deep concern about
this potential direction.
We, including Ravinder Thind, David Burg and Henry Gabryjelski, have
studied your proposal further and our concerns still exist.  Although
this proposal may solve a particular problem, we believe that it will
have the very large negative effect on the existing software
applications.  We further believe going forward with this proposal is
not the best thing for the overall industry.
If this proposal goes forward, drives will become unresponsive to the
host. The host will likely take actions such as resetting the bus to
recover the device.  And this will force a recovery to be done at a
higher level.  We believe few existing applications are prepared to deal
with this type of error.  Adding recover from this type of error will be
adding complexity.  The existing paradigm of reporting 2/4/8, indicates
the drive is busy and allows the application to recover at simple and
low level and we believe many applications have already implement this
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mtfuji5 at
[mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at] On Behalf Of
keiji_katata at
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:18 AM
To: mtfuji5 at
Cc: t10 at
Subject: Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8
Hello all,
I put documents about Consideration of 2/4/7, 2/4/8.
Please pick up and study them.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
* 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