From Bob.Griswold at wdc.com  Thu Apr  1 20:50:58 2010
From: Bob.Griswold at wdc.com (Bob Griswold)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:50:58 -0700
Subject: May T10 Room Block
Message-ID: <mailman.124.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Bob Griswold" <Bob.Griswold at wdc.com>
*
Gentlemen,
The 97th meeting of T10 occurring in Bellevue, WA, in just a month has booked
rooms sitting about 40%; and expires in two weeks or less.  Please take a
short minute or two to go online and get your room reserved.
This event is joint sponsored with Microsoft and Western Digital; look for
more updates...
Bob
Bob "Grizzy" Griswold
Director of Industry Software Architecture
Western Digital (Redmond)
P.O. Box 552, Fall City, WA 98024
425-647-6966
425-441-8354
bob.griswold at wdc.com 
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Apr  3 23:00:45 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:00:45 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/03/28
Message-ID: <mailman.125.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SMC-3 Move volume by indicator
(by: Noud Snelder)
T10/09-086r4   Uploaded: 2010/03/29   77428 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-086r4.pdf
SMC-3 TapeAlert Enhancements
(by: Curtis Ballard)
T10/09-109r4   Uploaded: 2010/04/01   144765 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-109r4.pdf
SPC-4: Correct usage of term volume in MAM attributes
(by: Curtis Ballard)
T10/10-043r2   Uploaded: 2010/04/01   62466 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-043r2.pdf
Minutes of CAP Working Group - March 9-11, 2010
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/10-087r1   Uploaded: 2010/03/29   59691 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-087r1.htm
Minutes of CAP Working Group - March 9-11, 2010
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/10-087r1   Uploaded: 2010/03/29   144621 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-087r1.pdf
SBC-3: vrprotect with bytchk set to one # byte-by-byte comparison
correction
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-137r0   Uploaded: 2010/03/30   23830 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-137r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: Mark Evans)
 Rev: 22       Uploaded: 2010/03/29   1419450 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r22.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/04/04 at 00:00:45)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Mon Apr  5 11:01:29 2010
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:01:29 -0500
Subject: What happened to my reflector email?
Message-ID: <mailman.126.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004050_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I sent an email to the reflector on 4/02/2010 but have not seen it
reflected. It was an amended comment list for SPL letter ballot review, so
included two attachments. Has the reflector quarantined the message because
of the attachments?


From mikeb at bustrace.com  Wed Apr  7 08:49:25 2010
From: mikeb at bustrace.com (Mike Berhan)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:49:25 -0700
Subject: Windows -> 32-byte CDBs
Message-ID: <mailman.127.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Mike Berhan" <mikeb at bustrace.com>
*
*
*
*
*
Windows is limited to 16-byte CDBs.  The Windows SCSI_REQUEST_BLOCK
structure and SCSI_PASS_THROUGH structures both have the CDB defined as:
UCHAR Cdb[16];
Thus there is no way that I am aware of to submit a 32-byte CDB to a device
under Windows.	Although only indirectly related to t10, I know the members
that subscribe to this reflector are involved in this area so I wanted to
pose these questions here:
1.)  Is there a method under Windows to submit a 32-byte CDB?
2.)  If #1 is no, are there any HBA vendors / miniport driver writers that
provide a private API to submit such a CDB.  Perhaps an IOCTL_SCSI_MINIPORT?
LSI?
Mike Berhan
busTRACE Technologies
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Apr  7 12:51:44 2010
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:51:44 -0500
Subject: Reminder: SAS PHY teleconference Thursday, April 8, 2010 10:00 am CDT
Message-ID: <mailman.128.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004071_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
1. Mini SAS HD internal sideband pinout.
2. Mini SAS what fits where chart and need to add "universal".
3. 10-113JTF calibration update.
4. Additional SAS 2.1 letter ballot items. (Alvin has been making a list to
discuss)
5. 12G drive connector updates
6. Additional 12G topics (usage models, channel analysis, etc).
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Topic: SAS PHY WG
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (GMT -05:00, Chicago)
Meeting Number: 826 515 680
Meeting Password: newsas
Please click the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=e28a688c5d515a00
0515
2. Enter your name and email address.
3. Enter the meeting password: newsas
4. Click "Join Now".
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&
ST=1&SHA2=SVyTzTdCGzSIxsgaH07Ohz1skP261RTOA-QjHZRNW6c=
WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time
you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by
clicking this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp  Thu Apr  8 19:32:05 2010
From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp (keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:32:05 +0900
Subject: [MtFuji] Posted: Fuji7 Rev.1.21 final
Message-ID: <mailman.129.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
3 weeks have passed since the document had been posted.
I did not receive any comments. Therefore I would like to forward this to
SFFC
and T10 at April 16.
If you forgot to send your comment, please send it to me or reflector.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp@avc-pioneer.com on 2010/03/19 15:44:28
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B:	  owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B:  mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
cc:    Frank.Chu at hitachigst.com, "Newman, Harvey" <Harvey.Newman at lsi.com>,
       "Boyd, James A" <james.a.boyd at intel.com>,
"James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com"
       <James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com>, "Jason.Hawken at amd.com"
       <Jason.Hawken at amd.com>, "Y.Horiuchi" <jl01881 at jcom.home.ne.jp>,
       "Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com" <Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com>, "t10 at t10.org"
       <t10 at t10.org>, "Thomas.Hildner at amd.com" <Thomas.Hildner at amd.com>
$B7oL>(B:  [MtFuji] Posted: Fuji7 Rev.1.21 final
Hello all,
I did not receive comment additionally.
Therefore I created and posted Fuji7 Rev. 1.21 final as follows.
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Spec/
 FUJI7r121_diff.pdf
 FUJI7r121_diff.zip
 FUJI7r121_final.pdf
 FUJI7r121_final.zip
Please refer to page 54 to find all changed potions.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp@avc-pioneer.com on 2010/03/02 18:44:30
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B:	  owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B:  mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
cc:    Frank.Chu at hitachigst.com, "Newman, Harvey" <Harvey.Newman at lsi.com>,
       "Boyd, James A" <james.a.boyd at intel.com>,
"James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com"
       <James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com>, "Jason.Hawken at amd.com"
       <Jason.Hawken at amd.com>, "Y.Horiuchi" <jl01881 at jcom.home.ne.jp>,
       "Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com" <Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com>, "t10 at t10.org"
       <t10 at t10.org>, "Thomas.Hildner at amd.com" <Thomas.Hildner at amd.com>
$B7oL>(B:  Re: [MtFuji] Posted: Meeting Minutes and revised document
Hello all,
I received 3 comments.
1. Slot loading drive reports "2/3A/02 No media tray open"
2. Confusion between Drawer loading and Tray loading
3. "2/3A/02" is reported during unloading operation
For them, I revised the proposal and posted them on ftp.

ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Proposal/Jan10/GET_EVENT_STATUS_NOTIFICATION.pdf
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Proposal/Jan10/SATA_OZE_4.pdf
I would like to request you to review these revised proposal. And I would
like
to change the release date from March 4 2010 to March 18 2010.
1. "2/3A/02 No media tray open"
Slot loading drives report this ASC/ASCQ when a disc is unloaded and when the
drive is ready to be power down. Actually Pioneer and some other venders
report
this. So I added description for "2/3A/02 No media tray open" of slot loading
drive.
2. Confusion
There are Drawer type and Tray type. Proposed document did not describe them.
Typically there are 4 types of ODD loading mechanism. I added all types in
the
appendix.
3. "2/3A/02" report timing
Drives report "2/3A/02" error before completion of its unloading operation.
Actually many drives report "2/3A/02 No media tray open" before opening the
door/unloading the disc. It is because that some host interface may time-out
in
short time and drive may take very long time to unload a disc. I added such
description in the appendix and GESN command.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp@avc-pioneer.com on 2010/02/18 15:43:53
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B:	  owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B:  Frank.Chu at hitachigst.com
cc:    "Newman, Harvey" <Harvey.Newman at lsi.com>, "Boyd, James A"
       <james.a.boyd at intel.com>, "James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com"
       <James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com>, "Jason.Hawken at amd.com"
       <Jason.Hawken at amd.com>, "Y.Horiuchi" <jl01881 at jcom.home.ne.jp>,
       "Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com" <Mladen.Luksic at wdc.com>,
       "mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com" <mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com>, "t10 at t10.org"
       <t10 at t10.org>, "Thomas.Hildner at amd.com" <Thomas.Hildner at amd.com>
$B7oL>(B:  [MtFuji] Posted: Meeting Minutes and revised document
Hello all,
Fuji meeting was held at Feb 16 2010.
I posted meeting minutes and revised document as follows.
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Proposal/Jan10/SATA_OZE_3.pdf
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Minutes/DraftMinFeb10.pdf
Frank, we though that SATA spec change may not be necessary for this issue.
Please refer to meeting minutes.
To all, I will release Fuji7 Rev. 1.21 at March 4 2010.
Please send your any comment to Fuji reflector or to me.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Apr 10 23:00:45 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:00:45 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/04/04
Message-ID: <mailman.130.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SBC-3 - Log page clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/09-293r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/08   126244 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-293r1.pdf
SMC3: Volume Replication Visibility, Rev 7
(by: Roger Cummings)
T10/09-308r7   Uploaded: 2010/04/06   183969 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-308r7.pdf
Minutes of ADI working group March 8, 2010
(by: Curtis Ballard)
T10/10-097r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/08   30325 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-097r1.pdf
Minutes SMC-3 WG Phone Conference April 07, 2010
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-140r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/07   38833 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-140r0.pdf
SPL: Letter Ballot Resolution Document
(by: George Penokie)
T10/10-141r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/07   3075494 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-141r0.fdf
SPL: Letter Ballot Resolution Document
(by: George Penokie)
T10/10-141r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/07   5198259 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-141r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group conference call April 8, 2010
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/10-142r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/08   281678 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-142r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
Automation/Drive Interface Commands - 3 (ADC-3)
(Editor: Paul Stone)
 Rev: 01e      Uploaded: 2010/04/07   1081857 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=adc3r01e.pdf
SAS Protocol Layer (SPL)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 06b      Uploaded: 2010/04/07   8300285 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl-r06b.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/04/11 at 00:00:45)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Mon Apr 12 14:37:17 2010
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:37:17 -0600
Subject: SPL rev 6b 
Message-ID: <mailman.131.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
In case you haven't noticed there was a new version of SPL posted last week.
It contains changes related to letter ballot comments that I have addressed
after a pass through all the comments received. Most of these changes
represent minor editorial requests. All changes are marked with strikeouts
and underlines. I suggest anyone who cares about such things to take a quick
pass through 6b to see if there is anything you don't like as I do not plan
on spending much, if any, any time on the changes in this revision. 
The comments resolution document is 10-141. If you made comments you can
determine the status for those comments by importing the 10-141 fdf into a
clean version of SPL-r06a. 
If the comment is checked it's done and I do not plan on discussing it any
further, so if you have an issue with a comment that is checked you will have
to bring it up otherwise you will not hear about it, any more, from me. 
If a comment is accepted or rejected, and not checked then I have modified
the requested change and believe it should be looked at by the working group.
If a comment has not accepted or rejected then the working group will get to
decide its fate.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-141r0.pdf
Non-PDF File(s) that will be posted are:
   10-141r0.fdf will be posted as 10-141r0.fdf
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From roweber at IEEE.org  Wed Apr 14 15:42:48 2010
From: roweber at IEEE.org (Ralph Weber)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:42:48 -0500
Subject: SPC-4 r24 uploaded
Message-ID: <mailman.132.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
The latest revision of SPC-4 is available as:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r24.pdf
Enjoy,
.Ralph
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From Bob.Griswold at wdc.com  Thu Apr 15 13:00:28 2010
From: Bob.Griswold at wdc.com (Bob Griswold)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:00:28 -0700
Subject: Bellevue May 2010
Message-ID: <mailman.133.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Bob Griswold" <Bob.Griswold at wdc.com>
*
Folks,
The MSWD T10 block closes tomorrow; we have a few rooms just opened up
because we were running up against my first conservative estimates.  It
seems that all your friends will be here hoping for good weather, you 
should join them.  Why not use this link
(http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/announce/ann-m097.pdf) and get your reservations
done today?  You know you want to be here...
Bob
Bob "Grizzy" Griswold
Director of Industry Software Architecture
Western Digital (Redmond)
P.O. Box 552, Fall City, WA 98024
425-647-6966
425-441-8354
bob.griswold at wdc.com  
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Apr 17 23:00:50 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:00:50 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/04/11
Message-ID: <mailman.134.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SMC3: Volume Replication Visibility, Rev 8
(by: Roger Cummings)
T10/09-308r8   Uploaded: 2010/04/14   201391 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-308r8.pdf
SPC-4 & SBC-3: Pollable Device Status model
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-133r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/14   104244 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-133r1.fdf
SPC-4 & SBC-3: Pollable Device Status model
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-133r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/14   99582 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-133r1.pdf
SAT-3 Write Buffer Translation Clarifications
(by: Brad Besmer)
T10/10-139r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/15   35225 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-139r0.pdf
T11 Liaison Report, April 2010
(by: Steven Wilson)
T10/10-143r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/13   24332 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-143r0.pdf
SPC-4: Self-test and SEND DIAGNOSTIC command clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-144r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/14   69447 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-144r0.pdf
SPC-4: Self-test and SEND DIAGNOSTIC command clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-144r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/15   71467 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-144r1.pdf
SAT-3 Add SAT-specific command reservations
(by: Brad Besmer)
T10/10-145r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/15   13548 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-145r0.pdf
SAT-3 Alignment equation tweak
(by: Rob Elliott and Jeff Wolford)
T10/10-146r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/15   87961 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-146r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Primary Commands - 4 (SPC-4)
(Editor: Ralph Weber)
 Rev: 24       Uploaded: 2010/04/14   4875155 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r24.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/04/18 at 00:00:50)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Mon Apr 19 08:40:20 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:40:20 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: Partition Type field (10-147r0)
Message-ID: <mailman.135.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004190_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have posted a proposal to add a Partition Type field in the Medium 
Partition mode page.  The purpose is to allow the application client to 
request that partitions be created to optimize for various types of usage.
2010/04/19 09:29:22 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-147r0.pdf
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Mon Apr 19 11:40:12 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:40:12 -0700
Subject: (10-068r1) SSC-4: Clarify load/unload behavior related to LOAD/HOLD bits
 uploaded
Message-ID: <mailman.136.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004191_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have updated the proposal on LOAD/HOLD bits behavior of the LOAD UNLOAD 
command.
2010/04/19 12:30:22 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-068r1.pdf
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Mon Apr 19 18:43:51 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:43:51 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: Exceeding 4-byte LBAs (10-091r1)
Message-ID: <mailman.137.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004192_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have updated my proposal for exceeding 4-byte LBAs.  I now have actual 
proposed text.
2010/04/19 19:33:22 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-091r1.pdf
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com


From dgilbert at interlog.com  Tue Apr 20 11:43:13 2010
From: dgilbert at interlog.com (Douglas Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:43:13 -0400
Subject: SAT: ATA PASS THROUGH sector count for IDENTIFY DEVICE
Message-ID: <mailman.138.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
*
While debugging some USB-3 storage devices (using
the mass storage class rather than UAS **) the
linux community has stumbled across confusion on
the sector_count field in the ATA PASS THROUGH (12)
and (16) commands defined in SAT and SAT-2.
One tool wants to send an ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
through the SAT pass-through to a SATA disk inside
an external USB enclosure. The SCSI ATA PASS THROUGH
command fields are set like this to fetch the 512 byte
response from the IDENTIFY DEVICE command:
   PROTOCOL:	4   [PIO DATA-in]
   T_DIR:	1   [data-in]
   BYTE_BLOCK:	1   [transfer unit is 512 bytes]
   T_LENGTH:	2   [use sector_count]
   SECTOR_COUNT: 1 or 0 ??
SAT indicates that SECTOR_COUNT should be 1. However
those familiar with ATA see that SECTOR_COUNT maps
to the COUNT field in the ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
and that is marked as "N/A". And they interpret that
to mean 0. According to ACS-2 the "N/A" keyword "has no
defined value and should not be checked by the host or
device". So 1 would seem to be permissible but not
obvious to ATA tools tunnelling through SAT.
The SATL in the USB-3 case failed when sector_count=0
but there seem to be plenty of SATLs out there that
accept it and respond with a block of data.
May I suggest an Annex to SAT-3 to show the encoding
of very common ATA commands like IDENTIFY DEVICE through
the ATA PASS THROUGH commands.
** Folk from Intel recently presented some work on the
    "UASP" transport to Linux community. A suggestion
    that the standard will be called "UAS" seem to fall
    on deaf ears.
Doug Gilbert
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From james.c.hatfield at seagate.com  Tue Apr 20 16:23:43 2010
From: james.c.hatfield at seagate.com (James C Hatfield)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:23:43 -0600
Subject: SAT: ATA PASS THROUGH sector count for IDENTIFY DEVICE
Message-ID: <mailman.139.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004201_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

For ATA (SATA or PATA), the Count field should NEVER be zero, because
neither interface supports zero-length data transfer for any protocol (dma,
pio, etc).
In ATA, 'N/A' is defined the way it is because there are some ancient
implementations for which there are vendor specific differences.
If a NOTE is needed, perhaps that is beneficial for those not as familiar
with ATA.
Thank You !!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hatfield
Seagate Technology LLC
  e-mail:  James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com
  s-mail:  389 Disc Drive;  Longmont, CO 80503 USA
  voice:  720-684-2120
  fax....: 720-684-2766
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Douglas Gilbert
<dgilbert at interlog.com>wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
> *
> While debugging some USB-3 storage devices (using
> the mass storage class rather than UAS **) the
> linux community has stumbled across confusion on
> the sector_count field in the ATA PASS THROUGH (12)
> and (16) commands defined in SAT and SAT-2.
>
> One tool wants to send an ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
> through the SAT pass-through to a SATA disk inside
> an external USB enclosure. The SCSI ATA PASS THROUGH
> command fields are set like this to fetch the 512 byte
> response from the IDENTIFY DEVICE command:
>   PROTOCOL:	 4   [PIO DATA-in]
>   T_DIR:	 1   [data-in]
>   BYTE_BLOCK:  1   [transfer unit is 512 bytes]
>   T_LENGTH:	 2   [use sector_count]
>   SECTOR_COUNT: 1 or 0 ??
>
> SAT indicates that SECTOR_COUNT should be 1. However
> those familiar with ATA see that SECTOR_COUNT maps
> to the COUNT field in the ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
> and that is marked as "N/A". And they interpret that
> to mean 0. According to ACS-2 the "N/A" keyword "has no
> defined value and should not be checked by the host or
> device". So 1 would seem to be permissible but not
> obvious to ATA tools tunnelling through SAT.
> The SATL in the USB-3 case failed when sector_count=0
> but there seem to be plenty of SATLs out there that
> accept it and respond with a block of data.
>
>
> May I suggest an Annex to SAT-3 to show the encoding
> of very common ATA commands like IDENTIFY DEVICE through
> the ATA PASS THROUGH commands.
>
>
> ** Folk from Intel recently presented some work on the
>    "UASP" transport to Linux community. A suggestion
>    that the standard will be called "UAS" seem to fall
>    on deaf ears.
>
> Doug Gilbert
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>


From MOverby at nvidia.com  Wed Apr 21 07:12:28 2010
From: MOverby at nvidia.com (Mark Overby)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:12:28 -0700
Subject: SAT: ATA PASS THROUGH sector count for IDENTIFY DEVICE
Message-ID: <mailman.140.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004210_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Well, except for a few command that use the non-data protocol of course. But
Jim is quite correct on the DMA and PIO protocols, all of them require data
transfer.
On 4/20/10 6:23 PM, "Jim Hatfield" <James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com> wrote:
For ATA (SATA or PATA), the Count field should NEVER be zero, because neither
interface supports zero-length data transfer for any protocol (dma, pio,
etc).
In ATA, 'N/A' is defined the way it is because there are some ancient
implementations for which there are vendor specific differences.
If a NOTE is needed, perhaps that is beneficial for those not as familiar
with ATA.
Thank You !!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hatfield
Seagate Technology LLC
   e-mail:  James.C.Hatfield at seagate.com
   s-mail:  389 Disc Drive;  Longmont, CO 80503 USA
   voice:  720-684-2120
   fax....: 720-684-2766
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
wrote:
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
*
While debugging some USB-3 storage devices (using
the mass storage class rather than UAS **) the
linux community has stumbled across confusion on
the sector_count field in the ATA PASS THROUGH (12)
and (16) commands defined in SAT and SAT-2.
One tool wants to send an ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
through the SAT pass-through to a SATA disk inside
an external USB enclosure. The SCSI ATA PASS THROUGH
command fields are set like this to fetch the 512 byte
response from the IDENTIFY DEVICE command:
   PROTOCOL:	4   [PIO DATA-in]
   T_DIR:	1   [data-in]
   BYTE_BLOCK:	1   [transfer unit is 512 bytes]
   T_LENGTH:	2   [use sector_count]
   SECTOR_COUNT: 1 or 0 ??
SAT indicates that SECTOR_COUNT should be 1. However
those familiar with ATA see that SECTOR_COUNT maps
to the COUNT field in the ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command
and that is marked as "N/A". And they interpret that
to mean 0. According to ACS-2 the "N/A" keyword "has no
defined value and should not be checked by the host or
device". So 1 would seem to be permissible but not
obvious to ATA tools tunnelling through SAT.
The SATL in the USB-3 case failed when sector_count=0
but there seem to be plenty of SATLs out there that
accept it and respond with a block of data.
May I suggest an Annex to SAT-3 to show the encoding
of very common ATA commands like IDENTIFY DEVICE through
the ATA PASS THROUGH commands.
** Folk from Intel recently presented some work on the
    "UASP" transport to Linux community. A suggestion
    that the standard will be called "UAS" seem to fall
    on deaf ears.
Doug Gilbert
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain
confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution
is prohibited.	If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Apr 21 16:15:18 2010
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:15:18 -0500
Subject: Reminder; SAS PHY teleconference Thursday, March 22, 2010 10:00 am 
	CST
Message-ID: <mailman.141.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004211_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
1. SAS 2.1 LB resolution
2. SAS 3.0 12G items
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Webex information: **
*https://seagate.webex.com*
Topic: SAS-2.1 PHY WG
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010
Time: 10:00 am, Central Standard Time
Meeting number: 826 515 680
Password: newsas
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Thu Apr 22 18:12:55 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:12:55 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Message-ID: <mailman.142.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004220_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

In reading SSC-4, ERASE(16) command I am confused by the last sentence in 
this paragraph:
<<The partition and logical object identifier fields specify the position 
at which the ERASE(16) command shall start. If the current position does 
not match the specified logical object identifier and partition fields, 
the device server shall perform a locate operation to the specified 
logical object identifier and partition prior to performing the erase 
operation. If the locate operation fails, the device server shall return 
CHECK CONDITION status and the additional sense code shall be set to 
LOCATE OPERATION FAILURE. The logical position is undefined following a 
locate operation failure with a LONG bit of zero.>>
Why does the value of the LONG bit make any difference in whether or not 
the position after a failed locate operation is defined?  I think this 
sentence is not accurate and should be modified to read, "The logical 
position is undefined following a locate operation failure."
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com


From tjmac at tolisgroup.com  Fri Apr 23 08:19:37 2010
From: tjmac at tolisgroup.com (Tim Jones)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:19:37 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Message-ID: <mailman.143.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
*
I believe that the question should be "What happens if a locate operation
fails when the LONG bit **IS** set to 1?"  Is there a difference in the task
that must then be performed to resolve the failure?
Tim
--
Tim Jones					tjmac at tolisgroup.com
President/CTO				http://www.tolisgroup.com
TOLIS Group, Inc.			http://www.productionbackup.com
480-505-0488 x227			480-505-0492 (fax)
BRU ... Because it's the RESTORE that matters
On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
> 
> In reading SSC-4, ERASE(16) command I am confused by the last sentence in
this paragraph: 
> 
> <<The partition and logical object identifier fields specify the position
at which the ERASE(16) command shall start. If the current position does not
match the specified logical object identifier and partition fields, the
device server shall perform a locate operation to the specified logical
object identifier and partition prior to performing the erase operation. If
the locate operation fails, the device server shall return CHECK CONDITION
status and the additional sense code shall be set to LOCATE OPERATION
FAILURE. The logical position is undefined following a locate operation
failure with a LONG bit of zero.>> 
> 
> Why does the value of the LONG bit make any difference in whether or not
the position after a failed locate operation is defined?  I think this
sentence is not accurate and should be modified to read, "The logical
position is undefined following a locate operation failure." 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
> MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
> Tel: 520-799-5280
> Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
> Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
> http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Fri Apr 23 09:38:47 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:47 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Message-ID: <mailman.144.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004231_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Tim,
In the ERASE(16) command, the CDB carries the Partition and LBA of the 
location to begin the erase operation.	The medium is to be located to 
that position then the erase begin.  If the locate to the initial position 
fails that failure occurs before the erase operation has begun.  Hence, 
the setting of the LONG bit that is used in the erase operation should 
have no bearing on the locate operation.
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/ 
From:
Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
To:
t10 at t10.org
Date:
04/23/2010 09:10 AM
Subject:
Re: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Sent by:
owner-t10 at t10.org
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
*
I believe that the question should be "What happens if a locate operation 
fails when the LONG bit **IS** set to 1?"  Is there a difference in the 
task that must then be performed to resolve the failure?
Tim
--
Tim Jones	 tjmac at tolisgroup.com
President/CTO								 
http://www.tolisgroup.com
TOLIS Group, Inc.						 
http://www.productionbackup.com
480-505-0488 x227 480-505-0492 (fax)
BRU ... Because it's the RESTORE that matters
On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
> 
> In reading SSC-4, ERASE(16) command I am confused by the last sentence 
in this paragraph: 
> 
> <<The partition and logical object identifier fields specify the 
position at which the ERASE(16) command shall start. If the current 
position does not match the specified logical object identifier and 
partition fields, the device server shall perform a locate operation to 
the specified logical object identifier and partition prior to performing 
the erase operation. If the locate operation fails, the device server 
shall return CHECK CONDITION status and the additional sense code shall be 
set to LOCATE OPERATION FAILURE. The logical position is undefined 
following a locate operation failure with a LONG bit of zero.>> 
> 
> Why does the value of the LONG bit make any difference in whether or not 
the position after a failed locate operation is defined?  I think this 
sentence is not accurate and should be modified to read, "The logical 
position is undefined following a locate operation failure." 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
> MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
> Tel: 520-799-5280
> Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
> Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
> http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From curtis.ballard at hp.com  Fri Apr 23 10:18:30 2010
From: curtis.ballard at hp.com (Ballard, Curtis C (StorageWorks))
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:30 +0000
Subject: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Message-ID: <mailman.145.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004232_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I believe the difference is that the logical position following an ERASE(16)
command with a long bit set to one is always undefined.  The standard doesn't
have any qualifiers about the command having been successful.
When the locate operation fails the logical position is now undefined even
when the long bit is set to zero.
It would also be true to drop that qualifier since the position is undefined
for both values of long following a locate failure.
Curtis Ballard
Hewlett Packard
StorageWorks Platforms Tape
Fort Collins, CO
(970) 898-3013
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Kevin D Butt
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:39 AM
To: Tim Jones
Cc: owner-t10 at t10.org; t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Tim,
In the ERASE(16) command, the CDB carries the Partition and LBA of the
location to begin the erase operation.	The medium is to be located to that
position then the erase begin.	If the locate to the initial position fails
that failure occurs before the erase operation has begun.  Hence, the setting
of the LONG bit that is used in the erase operation should have no bearing on
the locate operation.
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
From:
Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
To:
t10 at t10.org
Date:
04/23/2010 09:10 AM
Subject:
Re: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Sent by:
owner-t10 at t10.org
________________________________
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
*
I believe that the question should be "What happens if a locate operation
fails when the LONG bit **IS** set to 1?"  Is there a difference in the task
that must then be performed to resolve the failure?
Tim
--
Tim Jones								     
		tjmac at tolisgroup.com
President/CTO								     
   http://www.tolisgroup.com<http://www.tolisgroup.com/&gt;
TOLIS Group, Inc.						   
http://www.productionbackup.com<http://www.productionbackup.com/&gt;
480-505-0488 x227						   
480-505-0492 (fax)
BRU ... Because it's the RESTORE that matters
On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Kevin D Butt wrote:
>
> In reading SSC-4, ERASE(16) command I am confused by the last sentence in
this paragraph:
>
> <<The partition and logical object identifier fields specify the position
at which the ERASE(16) command shall start. If the current position does not
match the specified logical object identifier and partition fields, the
device server shall perform a locate operation to the specified logical
object identifier and partition prior to performing the erase operation. If
the locate operation fails, the device server shall return CHECK CONDITION
status and the additional sense code shall be set to LOCATE OPERATION
FAILURE. The logical position is undefined following a locate operation
failure with a LONG bit of zero.>>
>
> Why does the value of the LONG bit make any difference in whether or not
the position after a failed locate operation is defined?  I think this
sentence is not accurate and should be modified to read, "The logical
position is undefined following a locate operation failure."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
> MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
> Tel: 520-799-5280
> Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
> Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com
> http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From tjmac at tolisgroup.com  Fri Apr 23 12:33:59 2010
From: tjmac at tolisgroup.com (Tim Jones)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:33:59 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: ERASE(16) command description flaw?
Message-ID: <mailman.146.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Tim Jones <tjmac at tolisgroup.com>
*
On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Ballard, Curtis C (StorageWorks) wrote:
> I believe the difference is that the logical position following an
ERASE(16) command with a long bit set to one is always undefined.  The
standard doesn't have any qualifiers about the command having been
successful.
>  
> When the locate operation fails the logical position is now undefined even
when the long bit is set to zero.
>  
> It would also be true to drop that qualifier since the position is
undefined for both values of long following a locate failure.
After reviewing this scenario back to SSC-2, I agree that this is simply the
case in both situations.  The "probability" is that a LONG bit of 1 will not
result in this if the current location is incorrect as the ERASE command will
perform a select and position to the specified partition.
My curiosity was one of an ISV so that we make sure that we're handling both
situation properly.  It becomes very important in dealing properly with tapes
created in an LTO-5 with the LTFS functionality.
Thanks,
Tim
--
Tim Jones					tjmac at tolisgroup.com
President/CTO				http://www.tolisgroup.com
TOLIS Group, Inc.			http://www.productionbackup.com
480-505-0488 x227			480-505-0492 (fax)
BRU ... Because it's the RESTORE that matters
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Apr 24 23:00:51 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:00:51 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/04/18
Message-ID: <mailman.147.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SMC-3 TapeAlert Enhancements
(by: Curtis Ballard)
T10/09-109r5   Uploaded: 2010/04/23   252843 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-109r5.pdf
SSC-3: Cleaning Model
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/09-403r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/20   82279 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-403r1.pdf
SAS-2.1: SCD21 Limit Proposal for Passive Cables
(by: Michael Rost)
T10/10-008r4   Uploaded: 2010/04/21   1091052 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-008r4.pdf
SSC-4: Clarify load/unload behavior related to LOAD/HOLD bits
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-068r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/19   54678 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-068r1.pdf
SSC-4: Exceeding 4-byte LBAs
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-091r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/19   209209 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-091r1.pdf
SSC-4: Exceeding 4-byte LBAs
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-091r2   Uploaded: 2010/04/22   366705 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-091r2.pdf
SPC-4: READ BUFFER from echo buffer mode error
(by: William Martin)
T10/10-108r1   Uploaded: 2010/04/21   62602 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-108r1.pdf
SPC-4 & SBC-3: Pollable Device Status model
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-133r2   Uploaded: 2010/04/24   99258 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-133r2.pdf
SSC-4: Partition Type field
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-147r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/19   70589 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-147r0.pdf
SPC-4, SBC-3: More about power conditions and background tasks
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-148r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/20   29376 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-148r0.pdf
Log Parameter Color Coordination in FrameMaker files
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-149r0   Uploaded: 2010/04/21   23837 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-149r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Media Changer Command Set - 3 (SMC-3)
(Editor: Noud Snelder)
 Rev: 14       Uploaded: 2010/04/20   1847589 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=smc3r14.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/04/25 at 00:00:51)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From Kevin_Marks at Dell.com  Tue Apr 27 12:52:25 2010
From: Kevin_Marks at Dell.com (Kevin_Marks at Dell.com)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:52:25 -0500
Subject: Next rev of SPC-4/SBC-3 posted for Sunny Bellvue.
Message-ID: <mailman.148.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004270_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-115r0.pdf
Includes:
a)	Fixes agreed to at the last meeting;
b)	Fixes that I agreed with from SPL Letter Ballot comments for (Rob,
Gerry, Mark, Ralph); and
c)	 Removes most REQUEST SENSE command handling, as now in 10-133.
Kevin


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Apr 28 01:00:01 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 List Manager)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:00:01 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector Monthly Reminder
Message-ID: <mailman.149.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 List Manager <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
This is an automatic monthly posting to the T10 Reflector.  If you
receive this message, it means that you are subscribed to the T10
Reflector email list.
The T10 Reflector is provided by the SCSI Trade Association and
maintained by LSI Corp. This reflector exists to discuss INCITS
T10 Technical Committee issues and to disseminate T10-related
information (minutes, meeting notices, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not need to be an INCITS T10 Technical Committee member to
use this reflector, however you must agree to:
 * read the INCITS Patent Policy and the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines
 * acknowledge that the activities of the T10 Technical Committee are
   governed by the INCITS policies and procedures as specified in the
   reference documents RD-1 and RD-2
 * acknowledge that draft documents may change at any time, without notice.
The INCITS Patent Policy, the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines, the RD-1, and
the RD-2 are all available on the www.incits.org web site.
If you do not agree to the above conditions, then you must unsubscribe
to this reflector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T10 Reflector is not intended to carry commercial traffic. People who post
advertisements, job offers, etc. will be removed from the reflector.
Please visit http://www.t10.org/t10r.htm for instructions on subscribing,
unsubscribing, or searching the T10 Reflector archives.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Wed Apr 28 14:09:40 2010
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:09:40 -0500
Subject: Comment on SPC-4 rev. 24
Message-ID: <mailman.150.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1004281_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

SPC-4 rev. 24 incorporates a number of new proposals, including 09-357r4.
09-357 added a two bit field to the Power Condition mode page but let the
SPC-4 editor choose the location. I see that the editor choose byte 2, bits
7 and 6.
Another proposal that has been in process for quite a while (10-115, which
is a reincarnation of 09-085) already proposes to use byte 2 bits 7and 6
plus byte 3 bits 7 and 6 for another purpose. I believe the use of these bit
locations for this proposal should be honored.
If the rest of the T10 group agrees, I propose that the T10 editor place the
PM_BG_PRECEDENCE field in byte 2 bits 5 and 4 instead. I suspect the SPC-4
editor will want an agenda item at the CAP meeting so the group can make its
preference known -- if so I would like this item to appear on the CAP
agenda.


From Paul.Suhler at quantum.com  Fri Apr 30 16:53:51 2010
From: Paul.Suhler at quantum.com (Paul Suhler)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:53:51 -0600
Subject: Comments on T10/10-068 (SSC-4 Clarify LOAD and HOLD Bits) (T10/10-165r0)
Message-ID: <mailman.151.1441607358.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Paul Suhler" <Paul.Suhler at quantum.com>
*
Quantum has studied the behavior proposed in 10-068r1 and compared it
with the existing behaviors of the drives from two tape vendors.
10-165r0 summarizes these differences for reference during the
discussion of 10-068r1. 
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-165r0.pdf
Thanks,
Paul
___________________________________
Paul A. Suhler | Firmware Engineer | Quantum Corporation | Office:
949.856.7748 | paul.suhler at quantum.com 
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org