[T10] Observation about SBC-4 Annex H
roweber at ieee.org
Tue Oct 6 15:58:09 PDT 2020
IMHO, If the ANSI Editor sees no problem with publishing SBC-4 as shown
in r22, then my preference would be to avoid a third public review by
leaving the SBC-4 annexes as they are in the SBC-4 working draft that
T10 has forwarded to INCITS. If an organization that is called upon to
cast a Letter Ballot vote on the proposed second public review for SBC-4
chooses to No-vote the ballot and request that the annex be moved,
however, then that would be a different kettle of fish.
All the best, .Ralph
On 10/6/2020 5:11 PM, Gerry Houlder wrote:
> I observe that Annex H in SBC-4 says that it is normative. Annexes B
> through G are all informative. I thought we had a rule that normative
> annexes had to be in the early letters (i.e., the only other normative
> annex is Annex A). If that rule is still true, Annex H should either
> be changed to informative or it should be move to become annex B.
> Any comment from the T10 editors?
> T10 mailing list
> T10 at t10.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the T10