This message is from the T13 list server.
We actually talked about absoleting TCQ, but there were several objections at the meeting. If someone were to introduce a proposal, I do not know what would happen... Would you like to give it a try? You don't need to be a member to attend, you don't need to be a member to get a document number and get a proposal. Some people say you don't need to be a member to make a motion. Clearly, the only thing that requires a membership is voting. Oh yes, and you actually have to attend the meeting... ------------------------------------------------- Curtis E. Stevens 20511 Lake Forest Drive #C-214D Lake Forest, California 92630 Phone: 949-672-7933 Cell: 949-307-5050 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hale Landis Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [t13] ATA-8 APT Teleconference This message is from the T13 list server. Curtis Stevens wrote: > Regarding the obsolescence of ATAPI overlap and queuing. I am looking to > remove as much dead wood from ATA8-ACS as I can. And I can't disagree with this goal especially now that I see the ATAPI folks have had the chance to review the proposed action. I just think that if you are going to obsolete the PATA method of TCQ (bus release/SERVICE/NOP) then it should become obsolete for both ATA and ATAPI devices. Why wait until ACS-2? As has been noted many times, obsolete only means that it must be implemented according to the last standard that described it. Why carry this old stuff into ATA-8? Removing PATA TCQ (bus release/SERVICE/NOP for just ATAPI but leaving it for ATA sounds like lots of work - think of all the places in the documents that need to be updated rather than just deleted - it just sounds like a lot of work leading to lots of possible mistakes and lots of document reviews. On a similar note... Why carry PATA into ATA-8? This last valid description of PATA is ATA/ATAPI-6 (really can't use ATA/ATAPI-7 because it confuses PATA and SATA in too many places). Does anyone really expect that PATA will change in the future? Even if it does change, I would bet the change would require nothing more than a simple errata to ATA/ATAPI-6. Oh yea, withdraw ATA/ATAPI-7 now. No one knows which description of SATA to use: ATA/ATAPI-7 or SATA 1.x - some vendors use one, some vendors use the other - and we all know there are differences between these two descriptions of SATA. By withdrawing ATA/ATAPI-7 now the confusion is gone. Then disband T13 and let this interface called SATA become a specification published by a private (and secret) society as is done for many other device interfaces these days. Seems to work just fine for them and it eliminates the confusion of having to organizations publishing the nearly same information. And perhaps more important it eliminates the confusing that SATA is an interface that is defined by an ANSI "open standards" process - because SATA is not an thing that is defined by an "open standards" process. Hale -- ++ Hale Landis ++ www.ata-atapi.com ++
