Hello all,
Upon first review of the UAS draft (T10/2095-D)
one cannot escape several observations:
- Even though one of the triggers
leading to this (UAS) project was the introduction of USB 3.0 (see
T10/07-400r1), the initial draft carefully avoids any direct mention or
reference to it. While this approach might be considered as a valid
workaround avoiding the need to execute the USB 3.0 Contributors Agreement
required by the USB 3.0 Promoters Group in order to gain access to
the evolving USB 3.0 draft specifications, it does not make any
technical sense: one does not have to be a USB 3.0 Contributor to
understand that USB 3.0 will be significantly different from USB 2.0,
therefore, in order for UAS to be compatible or at least
non-conflicting with USB 3.0, the UAS specification must reference
the USB 3.0 specification.
- One of the key promises of UAS (according to the initial
draft) is: “does not
interfere with the USB Mass Storage Class (MSC) bulk-only
transport”). This is a non-trivial promise, deserving significant attention;
therefore I suggest including in the UAS document a dedicated chapter
about the envisioned coexistence/non-interference/inter-operability
between a device and host, taking into considerations all the
valid/envisioned configuration combinations on both the host and device
side (UAS enabled vs. “classical” USB host protocol stack or
both). This suggested new chapter in the UAS spec, IMHO, must be discussed
and agreed upon even before further embarking into the bits and pieces of
the UAS protocol details. Furthermore, this chapter must be
cooperatively coordinated with both USB IF and the USB 3.0 Promoter
Group in order to ensure fulfillment of the above cited promise.
Yoni Shternhell | Standardization Engineer- CTO Office | SanDisk | o. +972.(0)9.7632594 m. +972.(0)54.9222041| f. +972.(0)3.548-8666| www.sandisk.com