[T10] Observation about SBC-4 Annex H

Ralph Weber 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
> https://www.t10.org/mailman/listinfo/t10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20201006/8917db0a/attachment.html>

More information about the T10 mailing list