** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **
On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:46:42 pdt, Dal Allan wrote:
>None of your comments were made to SFF in a ballot on 8020.
At that time I was not working for an SFF member company nor was I
an SFF member. So my comments would not appear on any letter ballot
comment. As I said I sent several emails to the editors of SFF-8020
asking that they fix several problems: The DASP problem during SRST,
the Byte Count Limit problems, and several other things. I never
received a single reply to my messages and these problems in SFF-8020
were never fixed (the DASP/SRST problem was fixed in SFF-8020 rev
2.5).
>You have harsh words to say about several items being bad/wrong in SFF-8020
>but there is no record of any of these being raised during the development
>of ATAPI e.g. the word 'signature' appears nowhere in my personal records of
>the ATAPI SSWGs and SFF meetings held in 1995 and 1996.
It is all water that is now in the ocean... It really doesn't matter
does it? The only result of the SFF-8020 problems was that T13 spent
a better part of a year trying to sort out those problems so that the
ATA/ATAPI-4 definition was "correct". And some of those problems
continue to take huge amounts of T13's time (about 2 hours at the
April 2001 meeting in Longmont). It is not the case that T13 is
trying to make up new and different things for ATAPI... No... T13 is
just trying to figure out how ATAPI should work and how it can be
made to work so that an ATAPI device is compatible with other ATAPI
devices and with ATA devices.
>This one time, let me set the record straight.
> - INF-8020 would never have been incorrect or misleading had
> issues been brought to light and submitted as comments
> during the development process.
Most of the things that are incorrect or very misleading in SFF-8020
were never fixed. This is why T13 has spent huge amounts of time
trying to get ATA/ATAPI-4, ATA/ATAPI-5 and now ATA/ATAPI-6 "correct".
If only a few of the problems in SFF-8020 had been fixed back in the
early SFF-8020 2.x documents many of these problems would not be
continuing to plague T13 today.
> - INF-8020 is the way it is because you and others decided not
> to get involved before it was published.
I tired many times, via email, to become involved and to point out
problems in SFF-8020. And I am sure there are other people with the
same story.
*** Hale Landis *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
*** Niwot, CO USA *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
--
If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a
message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to
this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
