This message is from the T13 list server.
> > So when do we get volume 4,5,6,7,8,9 ? > I have been silently thinking this since we first decided to split into volumes. Remembering this early SCSI (SASI) < 100 page specification to the "BACK IT UP....BEEEP BEEEP BEEEP" specification they have today (which every vendors supports differently) and wondering....are we going there also.... gary laatsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Hedrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "T13" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 4:34 AM Subject: [t13] Volume 3 issue > 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 > >
