[T10] Observation about SBC-4 Annex H
bill.martin at samsung.com
Tue Oct 6 17:21:49 PDT 2020
I agree in principle with Ralph, but I would prefer to not hold this up for the ordering of the Annexes and address that in an early revision of SBC-5. The letter ballot will hopefully start soon and it is up to the members to decide if they wish to address this prior to second public review and delay second public review to some time after the next T10 plenary meeting.
Chair INCITS T10
Co-Chair SNIA Technical Council
NVMe Board of Directors
SSD I/O Standards
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cell (408) 499-1839
From: t10-bounces at t10.org [mailto:t10-bounces at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:58 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: [T10] Observation about SBC-4 Annex H
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<mailto:T10 at t10.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the T10