This message is from the T13 list server.


<rant>
Why not just merge T13 and T10 back togather into the X3 group as the
purpose of SAS is to promote the existance of a dead standard on the
physical layer.

The reality is SAS is only around to promote the extra bloated costs
associated w/ SCSI and make claims T10 hardware is superior to T13's.

Turning ATA in to the "ends justify the means" transport is not what is
desired.  Moving from a state-machine to a fuzzy-bus-state, only makes
things a mess.

Spliting volumes so that one part of the committee is clueless to what the
other part is doing is wrong and needs to go back to T10, regardless.
</rant>

Ah, that feels better.



Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:

> This message is from the T13 list server.
> 
> 
> Rather than keep the ATA-7 volume 1/2 split that exists today (adding
> volume 3 for SATA?), would it make sense to split it into three
> standards:
> 
> 1. ATA architecture and command set (what Volume 1 has today)
> 2. Parallel ATA transport protocol (what Volume 2 has today)
> 3. Serial ATA transport protocol (which will be revised many times in
> the future)
> 
> ATA/ATAPI-7 would be like SCSI-3, the last global ATA/ATAPI-n number.  
> 
> Rather than work on ATA/ATAPI-8 next and upgrade the commands and
> transport protocols at the same time (even if they don't all need
> changes), ATA Commands - 2, 3, etc. work could progress independently
> from Serial ATA - 2, 3, etc. work.  Parallel ATA - 1 might be the last
> version of that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed before, I'd also urge you to consider these renamings as 
> Serial ATA is added:
>       device -> target 
>       host -> initiator
>       Parallel ATA/volume 2 uses "Parallel ATA initiator/target"
>       Serial ATA/volume 3 uses "Serial ATA initiator/target"
>       Command set/volume 1 uses "ATA initiator/target"
> 
> This is patterned after the terminology used by the SCSI standards
> and would help ATAPI and SAS (which both use ATA and SCSI together).
> 
> --
> Rob Elliott, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hewlett-Packard Industry Standard Server Storage Advanced Technology
> https://ecardfile.com/id/RobElliott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mclean, Pete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:23 PM
> > To: T13 (E-mail)
> > Subject: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13
> > 
> > 
> > This message is from the T13 list server.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ziller, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:54 PM
> > To: 'Mclean, Pete'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Technical Committee T13,
> > 
> > The Serial ATA Steering Committee is very interested in 
> > transferring the
> > Serial ATA 1.0 specification over to the T13 Committee as 
> > soon as possible
> > to be incorporated into the ATA/ATAPI Rev 7 release.  The 
> > Steering Committee
> > has already voted and unanimously approved this transfer.  We 
> > can start
> > having the Promoter companies approve and execute the 
> > copyright release
> > forms as soon as we hear that the T13 Committee has voted to 
> > accept the
> > Serial ATA 1.0 specification.  If the T13 Committee votes to 
> > accept the spec
> > in December, then we expect to be able to transfer the spec 
> > by January 2003.
> > Also, we are in the process of incorporating the existing 
> > errata into the
> > specification, and expect that will be completed within the 
> > same timeframe.
> > Please let us know what your critical deadlines are, and if 
> > the above meets
> > your needs.
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > Jason Ziller
> > Serial ATA Working Group chairman
> > 
> > 
> 

Reply via email to