Stop voting and send your opinion for CORE feature V2
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Thu Jan 5 21:26:58 PST 2006
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Mt.Fuji document says that drive shall not accept the 2nd SMA address once it
has been accepted. It is because that if special ODTA is performed with the
current SMA location, it is difficult to move the SMA and the DTA.
The other hands, Fuji document never prohibit that drive closes the R-DL disc
with new SMA that is located inner than the SMA specified by command set.
- Where is the start address of the SMA when the disc is requested to be
finalized? Our understanding is the location of the SMA is not changed because
once the location is specified, it is not allowed to be changed. Is this
By the SEND DISC STRUCTURE COMMAND, new SMA cannot be specified. To finalize
R-DL disc, drive may move the SMA start address at NWA on L0.
- Where is the Border-out allocated? Just before the SMA, first 7 ECC blocks of
the SMA or at NWA?
Border-out will be allocated between NWA and SMA that is specified by command.
If the length of the BO is shorter than the specified length by Part 1, a part
of Border-out shall be recorded with the SMA.
- Which data type is recorded between NWA and Border-out or between the
Border-out and the SMA, when host requests to finalize the disc?
It is normal data attribute if there are space between recorded user data and
Border-out. To finalize the disc, SMA may be used instead of Border-out.
- Is it allowed to apply reduced Border-out even if enough sectors are remained
The size of Border-zone + SMA must satisfy the Book.
If Shifted Middle Area has been specified and the start address is;
- outer enough than 3FF00h. Is Multi-border allowed?
Yes, it is allowed.
- inner than 3FF00h;
- Is the Multi-border not allowed due to the limitation of the location of the
No, Multi-border is not allowed.
- Is it allowed to allocate the Border-out inner than 3FF00h
No, allocating the Border-out is not allowed.
Takaharu Ai <ai.takaharu at jp.panasonic.com>@avc-pioneer.com on 2005/12/28
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
cc: t10 at t10.org
$B7oL>(B: Re: Stop voting and send your opinion for CORE feature V2
Hello Katata-san and Mt.Fuji members,
Before proceeding Mt.Fuji6 voting, I would like to confirm some issues
about the relation of SMA and border. Please see the attached file and
give me the answer of those questions.
Thanks in advance.
Panasonic AVC Networks Company
---------------- Start of the original message ----------------
>From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
>To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
>Cc: t10 at t10.org
>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:18:03 +0900
>Subject: Stop voting and send your opinion for CORE feature V2
>I would like to stop the voting of Fuji6. Because we have one discussion item
>that is "Update CORE feature version to 2".
>I think that if all items of CORE feature V2 that Henry-san mentioned are
>optional, then it is OK as editorial changes.
>But if they are mandatory to be conformed to Fuji6 specification (maybe MMC5
>standard) like DBEvent bit, we need discussion for this new technical change.
>I think Bill-san may allow to discuss this issue at the next MMC5.
>So could you send your opinion Optional vs. Mandatory by Jan 8th if you may not
>attend the next MMC5.
>Then after making the proposal sentence of the new CORE feature, I would like
>restart the voting for the new Fuji6 1.00 Draft. The review period for the 2nd
>voting round will be two weeks. So please continue your review for the current
----------------- End of the original message -----------------
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10