** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **
Sigh... I guess I am real confused... And I would bet lots of other
people are too...
On Wed, 23 May 2001 04:50:35 pdt, Dal Allan wrote:
> - ATAPI operated as an SFF SSWG from November 1993 through December 1994
> - ATAPI operated as an X3T10 Working Group from January to December 1995
> - ATAPI operated as a T13 Working Group beginning January 1996
INF-8020 (aka SFF-8020) revision 2.6, dated January 22, 1996, does
not say anything about T10 (or T13), except in a few references to
other documents and this one statement:
"It is anticipated that most Specifications will be Forwarded to an
accredited standards body such as EIA (Electronic Industries
Association) or ASC (Accredited Standards Committee) X3T10. They may
be accepted for separate standards, or incorporated into other
standards activities."
The change history indicates that all the 2.x revisions were done in
1995 but does not say where the documents originated. The change
history for revision 2.6 says it was created in November 1995 but the
change history does not say the document was an X3T10 activity. One
can only assume from reading the SFF front matter that it is an SFF
document, the result of an SFF authorized activity. Most important to
me is that is does not say it is an X3T10 document. Plus I did not
know that X3T10 used SFF to publish documents. I am confused. But if
T10 uses SFF to publish documents then I must ask why T13 does not do
the same? It seems that SFF documents are much less hassle to publish
and they certainly seem to have a longer life span that ANSI NCITS
documents.
>The SFF Committee was responsible for:
> - Development and distribution of SFF Rev 1.2
> - Development and distribution of SFF-8029 (addendum to Rev 1.2)
So SFF had nothing to do with the development of the revision 2.x
documents? And I bet I can safely assume T10 did have anything to do
with them either. Sounds to me like this was some rogue operation,
perhaps just the document editors and a few friends meeting during
the same time and location as the T10 meeting, pumping out all the
2.x revisions? Just how did this happen anyway? The history stated
below certainly makes it sound like T10 was using SFF to publish
documents. That certainly sounds a little odd to me.
>X3T10 voted to continue work on an SFF-8020i specification as a service to
>industry during the period when ATAPI was to be broken apart into different
>standards.
> - Development of Rev 2.5 was done by X3T10
> - Distribution of Rev 2.5 was done by SFF
> - Development of Rev 2.6 was done by X3T10
> - Distribution of Rev 2.6 was done by SFF
OK, I trust you when you say T10 voted to do this. It just sounds a
little odd to me.
>Let me repeat the only point I have been trying to make since this thread
>started:
> The revisions of 8020 which have been named as the cause
> of so much grief were not developed by SFF.
But the problems we are talking about go back to the 1.x documents
and were never fixed there or in the later 2.x documents.
> - The SFF Committee was NOT responsible for the technical content
> of any later revision of SFF-8020 such as Rev 2.5 and Rev 2.6.
Gee... I wonder if T13 can claim it has no responsibility for the
technical content of ATA/ATAPI-4? That might solve a bunch of
problems! I think this says it all: No one was responsible for the
technical content of SFF/INF-8020. BTW the front page of INF-8020
also says this very same thing.
>Okay Hale, explain how that bears any resemblance whatsoever to SFF ignoring
>you.
I do not think I said "SFF was ignoring me". If what I said sounded
that way then I am sorry. What I have always said is that the
"editors of SFF-8020 ignored me" and I also know they ignored the
input and comments from many other people. And this goes back to the
revision 1.x documents when SFF-8200 was an SFF activity. For someone
that was not a member of SFF or did not work for an SFF member
company it appeared that only way to submit comments/input concerning
SFF-8020 was to submit that to the editors of the document. I think
anyone who did submit comments to those editors fully expected some
response and/or some action would be taken. Experience with other
document editors certainly shows that most editors are willing to
accept input from any source and would want that input especially if
it improved their document. This was clearly not the case with
SFF-8020.
===
Look, I don't really care about any of this. All I tried to say many
days ago was that because comments to the SFF-8020 revision 1.x and
2.x documents were ignored, and not just my comments, T13 is still
trying to fix ATAPI. Again, all I want is a description of the ATAPI
interface to be correct and I wish for a day when ATAPI devices work
with each other and with ATA devices on the same cable.
However, I certainly do not like it when people take my comments to
mean "I do not like ATAPI". That is not true. I will not tolerate
people saying things like that about me (anymore than I tolerated a
certain disk drive company trying to say I was against LBA addressing
many years ago, that was never true either, but that is a whole other
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]
