virtio — archive

Editorial comments on VIRTIO v1.2 csd01

From: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 13:28:00 -0000

On Tue, May 10 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:40:25PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: >> On Tue, 10 May 2022 10:07:12 +0200 >> Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, May 10 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 04:40:53PM -0400, Paul Knight wrote: >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> These comments are intended for the TC Editors, although I'm sending it to the >> > >> TC's email list for future reference. >> > >> >> > >> In running a link check, I noted several issues, none significant for this >> > >> initial public review publication: >> > >> - broken link in Normative references: >> > >> -- [S390 Common I/O] ESA/390 Common I/O-Device and Self-Description, IBM >> > >> Publication SA22-7204, >> > >> http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/dz9ar501/CCONTENTS , and any >> > >> future revisions >> > >> (This link is currently broken, and I could not find any alternative source for >> > >> this document. - please rewrite the reference to indicate document is no longer >> > >> available at this link. You may also consider whether the solitary citation at >> > >> 4.3.1.3 is still needed.) >> > >> This broken link is not a blocking issue for a Committee specification Draft, >> > >> but it will not be allowed for a Committee Specification. >> > > >> > > OK I addressed the below but not the above. Cornelia, Halil, I could use >> > > some help here. >> > >> > I think the content of this document is still generally relevant, but >> > I don't know where it (or an update) can be found nowadays... Halil, did >> > you have any luck locating a public link? >> > >> >> Yes, a link to a publication in a BOOKMGR format. >> https://www.ibm.com/resources/publications/OutputPubsDetails?PubID=SA22720401 >> >> Unfortunately I failed at getting the corresponding people to provide >> something more usable (e.g. a PDF). >> >> I believe, the best we can do is use this link. Maybe if more people >> start complaining about the format provided... Whom should we complain to? (And is there any chance of a z/Arch version being published?) >> >> Regards, >> Halil > > Should it still say SA22-7204 or should it say SA22-7204-01? I would guess that "SA22-7204 or future revisions" covers it nicely, although, OTOH, I don't expect any updates to ESA/390 documents.