This message is from the T13 list server.
Regarding PATA, you actually hit the nail on the head: things are a bit tangled in ATA/ATAPI-7. ATA/ATAPI-7 was the first attempt to introduce the serial transport into ATA. ATAPI took several revisions to get right, and your help was much appreciated. With ATA8, the PATA portion can stand alone. Once we have that accomplished, we do not plan to create further specs. There has been a lot of new capability added to ATA8, by the time ATA8 goes to letter ballot I expect to have over 20 new proposals integrated. Most of these are for new capabilities. I believe that having clean PATA and SATA standards, separate from the command set will become very important moving forward. ATA/ATAPI-6 or 7 will not be sufficient for host side developers because of new feature development. ------------------------------------------------- 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 ++
