How should ATA/ATAPI-8 be referenced?

[John Geldman (jgeldman)]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "John Geldman (jgeldman)" <jgeldman at lexar.com>
*
There are exactly nine occurrences to ATA/ATAPI-7 in SPC4r25.
(and Ralph, note that AT/ATAPI-7 != ATA/ATAPI-7)
Most of these occurrences are version descriptors (e.g., Table 142 Version
descriptor values
"ATA/ATAPI-6 (no version claimed) 15E0h
ATA/ATAPI-6 ANSI INCITS 361-2002 15FDh
ATA/ATAPI-7 (no version claimed) 1600h
ATA/ATAPI-7 ANSI INCITS 397-2005 161Ch
ATA/ATAPI-7 T13/1532-D revision 3 1602h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-AAM (no version claimed) 1620h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-AAM ANSI INCITS 451-2008 1628h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-APT Parallel Transport (no version claimed) 1621h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-AST Serial Transport (no version claimed) 1622h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-ACS ATA/ATAPI Command Set (no version claimed) 1623h
ATA/ATAPI-8 ATA8-ACS ANSI INCITS 452-2009 w/ Amendment 1 162Ah")
Only one occurrence isn't a version descriptors: Table 389 contains the ATA
protocol identifier. 
** Table 389 contains protocols (e.g., SPL) and full interfaces (e.g., IEEE
1394). Should this entry be changed to AAM (which avoids the ever-evolving
ACS reference, and is so-far almost always true)?
** If the AAM/AST/APT documents are only found in version descriptor value
definition, do they need references?
** And is this editorial issue, or is a proposal needed?
John Geldman
Lexar Media Inc. (a Micron Technology Inc. subsidiary)
47300 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538
P: 510-580-8715
C: 510-449-3597
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
Stevens
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:29 AM
To: Ralph Weber; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: How should ATA/ATAPI-8 be referenced?
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Curtis Stevens" <curtis.stevens at wdc.com>
*
The reference for this doc is ATA8-ACS.  The follow-on will be ACS-2.
-------------------------------------------------
Curtis E. Stevens
Sr. Staff  Engr - Standards & Features Technology
20511 Lake Forest Drive #A 113-F
Lake Forest, California 92630
Phone: 949-672-7933
Cell: 949-307-5050
E-Mail: Curtis.Stevens at WDC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 7:30 AM
To: 't10 at t10.org'
Subject: How should ATA/ATAPI-8 be referenced?
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
  During the CAP meeting, I was asked to change the Protocol
Identifier for ATA/ATAPI-7 to ATA/ATAPI-8.
This does not jibe with the Normative References section of
SPC-4, and I cannot see how to fix it.
ATA/ATAPI-8 is *not* an ISO/IEC project. The closest thing
to a project in this area is ATA-8 ACS.
Some might debate whether referencing ATA-8 ACS is correct
for Protocol Identifiers. Perhaps ATA-8 AAM should be
referenced instead, but there is no ISO/IEC project for
ATA-8 AAM.
Until an appropriate normative reference can be identified,
I have left the SPC-4 Protocol Identifiers table unmodified.
All the best,
.Ralph
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org