MMC6rev2e has been uploaded to the t10 website

Bill McFerrin bmcferrin at dataplay.com
Wed Oct 21 10:53:02 PDT 2009


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Bill McFerrin" <bmcferrin at dataplay.com>
*
Dear Mr Tazawa,
Thank you for your comment.
Both MMC and Fuji are correct, but we have failed to describe clearly.
At loading time, the Drive must identify each layer and assign each layer a
number.
Once the layer numbering is assigned, Drive SHALL NOT change the layer
numbering until the disc is ejected.
Drive #1 may identify a 4 layer disc 0, 1, 2, 3 from the outer-most layer.
Drive #2 may identify the same disc as layers 0, 1, 2, 3 except number from
the inner-most layer.
This is OK.
Drive #1 must not change its layer numbering once it has made the numbering
decision.
Drive #2 must not change its layer numbering once it has made the numbering
decision.
I will create some descriptions in MMC6 to make this more clear.
Kind Regards,
Bill McFerrin
DPHI
-----Original Message-----
From: Eijiro Tazawa(?????) [mailto:eijirou-tazawa at hlds.co.jp]
Sent: Wed 21-Oct-09 1:08 AM
To: Bill McFerrin
Subject: RE: MMC6rev2e has been uploaded to the t10 website
Dear Mr. McFerrin,
Thank you for uploading the latest revision of MMC6.
> For the commenters: Please verify that I have changed the document
correctly.
I have confirmed that pointed parts are changed correctly.
Recently, we noticed another mis-description to be revised.
It is regarding the "Hybrid Disc."
[1]:
In "4.25.3 Format-layer selection mechanism using the START STOP UNIT
command,"
there is a below sentence on page 192 (PDF-page240):
  "Format-layers are numbered from zero and incremented by one.
   The assignment rule of numbers to Formatlayers is vendor-specific."
[2]:
On the other hand,
In "6.22.3.1.8 Format Code 90h: List of recognized format layers,"
there is a below sentence on page 399 (PDF-page447):
  "The numbering of the Format-layer shall be in numerical ascending order
   of the Format-layer type code defined in Table 393."
These 2 sentences does not match each other.
The same conflict can be seen in Mt. Fuji 1.20 (September version).
According to Katata-san and Ai-san, [2] is correct while [1] is not.
   ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_6/Minutes/MinNov05.pdf
Due to above meeting minutes (2005.11),
editor forgot to revise [1] when [2] was newly clarified and added.
Ai-san will notify this issue through Fuji-reflector shortly,
and Katata-san will revise the [1] to match with [2].
So MMC6 would be.
Sincerely yours,
Eijiro Tazawa
Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Bill McFerrin
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:42 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: MMC6rev2e has been uploaded to the t10 website
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Bill McFerrin" <bmcferrin at dataplay.com>
*
MMC WG Members:
I have uploaded the revision of MMC6 that addresses many, many comments from
Mtfuji members.
The comments were very detailed and I appreciate the help. Processing the
comments took longer than I expected. In the case of document formatting
comments I made most of the changes. However, some were not done. I am
working now on addressing each comment for the rev 1 version of the comments
resolution document 09-283r0 where I will explain the cases where no change
was made.
For the commenters: Please verify that I have changed the document correctly.
Kind Regards,
Bill McFerrin
DPHI
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
*
* 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 mailing list