[T10] CAP Proposal "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE (232) commands" uploaded
roweber at ieee.org
Thu Oct 6 07:59:30 PDT 2016
232 seemed big enough to make the point without being so big as to give
somebody the opportunity to prove that I hadn't done my homework fully
enough. All the best, .Ralph
P.S. One or two complaints have been heard to the effect that 232 is too
On 10/6/2016 8:53 AM, Kevin.Marks at dell.com wrote:
> I'm curious why you choose a 232 byte instead of what seems like an SPC max of 260 byte, or is this for future expansion? BTW looks like all the transports can take a 268 byte max.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: t10-bounces at t10.org [mailto:t10-bounces at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 6:43 AM
> To: T10, Reflector <T10 at t10.org>
> Subject: [T10] CAP Proposal "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE (232) commands" uploaded
> In response to complaints that the Milford CAP gathering seemed too much like a Tea & Scones Club, a proposal laced with controversy from pillar to post has been added to the Santa Rosa CAP agenda.
> Titled "SBC-4 & SPC-5: Add READ (232) and WRITE (232) commands", its six pages of pure explosives are available from:
> Those touched by a desire to expound upon the proposal's motivating forces will need to converse with Kevin Marks, since he was the first to loose an arrow that pierced the bullseye (not to mention his pithy rejoinder, the colorful nature of which is unlikely to be exceeded by any subsequent offering).
> All the best,
> T10 mailing list
> T10 at t10.org
More information about the T10