[T10] Two late RFC comments regarding SBC-4 r17

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Fri Aug 2 07:36:56 PDT 2019


I agree with your comment 1), there is no need for the single entry lists
that you have pointed out.

For comment 2), the 4 entry list includes 3 shalls and one may. Since the 4
entry list is connected by an "and", all four items are to be processed.
This should be OK as is.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com> wrote:

> Comment 1 (editorial)
>
>
>
> In 4.19.3.3 and 4.19.3.5, there are four instances of third level a)
> entries with no b). These are not lists in a state machine, so unless there
> is a justification for these single-entry lists, the third level a)’s
> should be removed.
>
>
>
> Comment 2 (substantive)
>
>
>
> In 4.19.3.2, the use an ordered list prevents 4) from ever being processed
> because 3) requires command termination.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> .Ralph
> _______________________________________________
> T10 mailing list
> T10 at t10.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.t10.org_mailman_listinfo_t10&d=DwICAg&c=IGDlg0lD0b-nebmJJ0Kp8A&r=TxI1DC4HavpWBdSmUqvdNvSwgOklhaW328zLt5AOpPM&m=Oi7fLyIUccZfQR-9juEz0Uh_WYf1VV4tNEv8lM3tJuc&s=1X6VkdpdlwqdHtCmD7XI5-izFEGs1WBHAM8fvyVawvU&e=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20190802/a69f01ed/attachment.html>


More information about the T10 mailing list