Re: [virtio] Re: Editorial comments on VIRTIO v1.2 csd01

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 10 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> 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 <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, May 10 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> 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.