This message is from the T13 list server.
Folks, I have nothing against the volume 3 point. What I have a problem with is the design problems of T10 bus-phase model pollution. The next thing we will deal with is task management of arrays and the glory of vendor unique from down below. Note most of this noise about bloated changes of transport protocol is from the folks concerned with profits. Not that this is a problem, until the sole purpose is to generate complexity with out reason. Sure the concept of target <> initiator is valid. Forcing T13 to adopt STP from SAS is not making good on the promise on backwards compatiblity. So when do we get volume 4,5,6,7,8,9 ? When do SATA disks suffer under MMC3 and the backdoor to force the beloved digital rights managment? This is not a bad thing, if people have control over the usage. Next we end up with Fibre Channel like domains, and the maintance of the document goes (volume #)^e. Guess everyone missed the point about bloating the SPEC and looking just like T10. Prove to me we are not going to be lemmings running off the SCSI cliff of death and I will be more reasonable. Why is it so important to force SCSI protocol on ATA/SATA transport? Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group
