This message is from the T13 list server.
If this is how things are 1. A group formed a secret society and specified a serial ATA implementation. 2. They presented it to T13 with no strings attached as far as modifications. 3. It subsequently has been found to be neither compatible, nor to work reliably. then it seems logical, 1. T13 should make the changes required to make it both compatible and reliable. 2. The secret society should accept the required changes. Otherwise, it isn't really an ATA device and T13 should reject it. One other comment to Knut's email of a day or so ago. It's always really disappointing when groups such as yours profess innocence and desire for compatibility AFTER you've gone off and screwed it up. And this usually occurs because you don't know what you're doing. It's really a shame that throughout the entire history of ATA, this has been the continual modus operandi. It is very easy to be an industry leader. But being a real industry leader has responsibilities such as not breaking existing hardware and openly cooperating with others. Knut wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand what the underlying issue is that is raising > this, and I suspect that folks that may not have expertise in the legal > area may be causing undue confusion. > > I believe the industry benefits from avoiding two different flavors of > the SATA technology that are not interchangeable, and therefore suggest > that technical work done in either the T13 or SATA communities see some > coordination. To that effect, the SATA community has been submitting > materials to T13 on work that SATA is doing that can impact the T13 > document (for example errata identified and addressed, etc). Some of the > stuff we send T13 is in early stages to provide advance notice (for > example the latching cable assembly solution which was provided as > advance notice before it was completed). > > I would hope that T13 exercise a similar discipline in advancing the > technology in order to avoid two different favors of the technology > resulting. I'm not aware of any legal obligation to do so, but suspect > it would be generally good for the storage industry. >
