virtio — archive

Editorial comments on VIRTIO v1.2 csd01

From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 13:08:00 -0000

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... > > Regards, > Halil Should it still say SA22-7204 or should it say SA22-7204-01? -- MST