SAT Question/Comment

Kevin_Marks at Dell.com Kevin_Marks at Dell.com
Wed Aug 10 21:13:00 PDT 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* <Kevin_Marks at Dell.com>
*
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C59E2A.F6A2BC16
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,

I have question/comment on SAT and the meaning of the E/U SATTypes,
especially the U type.  My interpretation of the U SATtype, is that the
standard does not specify the translation/behavior of this field, which
to me means that I can implement a vendor specific behavior within the
bound of SPC-3, SBC-2, etc.

I have noticed that in many of the current proposals and in SATr05 that
many of the U fields have shall/should and behaviors of reporting CHECK
CONDITIONS or statements of ignoring the field in the Description or
reference column. Shouldn't these be E, and not U.?=20

Not to pick on Steve, but his was the last proposal I looked at. In
05-108r2 SAT-Task Management for example, in Table 1 - Control byte
fields of clause 1.4.1 CONTROL byte overview, the LINK and NACA fields
are both specified as U, and both have behaviors that say if set to one
shall return a CHECK CONDITION, etc. Should these not be E, so that if
for some strange reason I want implement link commands or NACA in the
SATL, I can?

Comments

Thanks

Kevin


Kevin Marks
Dell, Inc.



------_=_NextPart_001_01C59E2A.F6A2BC16
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

 SAT Question/Comment All, I = have question/comment on SAT and the meaning of the = E/U = SATTypes, especially the U type.  = My interpretation of the U SATtype, is that the = standard does not specify = the = translation/behavior of this field, which to me means that I can implement a vendor specific = behavior within the bound of SPC-3, SBC-2, = etc. I = have noticed that in many of the current proposals and in SATr05 that = many of the U fields have shall/should and = behaviors of reporting CHECK CONDITIONS or statements of ignoring the field in the Description or = reference column. Shouldn;t these be E, and not U.? Not = to pick on Steve, but his was the last proposal I looked at. = In 05-108r2 SAT-Task = Management for example, = in Table 1 ; Control byte = fields of = clause = 1.4.1 CONTROL byte = overview, the LINK and NACA fields are both specified as U, and both = have behaviors that say if set to one shall return a CHECK = CONDITION, etc. Should these not be E, so that if for some strange = reason I want implement link commands or NACA in the = SATL, I can? Comments Thanks Kevin 
Kevin Marks
 Dell, Inc.
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C59E2A.F6A2BC16--





More information about the T10 mailing list