This message is from the T13 list server.
Not true, I have current projects to support native SATAPI. The humor is lost on the folks who think SAS drives will ever be sold. There are companies now working on SATA-FC bridges. There is nobody working on SAS-FC bridges. T13 product base has always been view in the Enterprise Storage as laughable. Yet it is the drive companies themselves who have created the sitiuation by responding to customer needs. Better and more cost effective storage. The evolution of SATA is invisioned to be the poor man's fibre channel. To bad the trend setters did not count on the self implosion of SCSI as a physical transport. So in keeping with the failed I2O messaging model for a transport, borrowing the clever properties of T11 on the fibre transport, and forcing down the pipes a SCSI wrapper to allow all the deadbeat companies who do storage management to keep alive is gross. What is being forced down the committee is to transform a relatively simple and easily managed protocol, into an monster mess. Are dues now going to jump to $10,000 next year as a means to restrict input from consultants? Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Gary Laatsch wrote: > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > It seems to me that since SATA has kind of ignored the ATAPI part of T13 (at > least for now) that maybe the committee shouldn't rush into including it. > >From my short experience with SATA it appears to be targeted at RAID and not > the normal everyday folk. How many SATA CD's, DVD or ZIP devices are > available out there. I am not sure SATA is even going to take off, I am > thinking it might have missed its window and be dead. It looks to me like > USB2.0 has more focus from alot of the mass storage folks. Of course, this > is just my personal opinion. > > gary laatsch > Unemployed Firmware Engineer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andre Hedrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "T13 (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:58 PM > Subject: RE: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
