From colopj at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  1 08:25:33 2010
From: colopj at yahoo.com (Peggy Vanhavermaat)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Just Testing - Please Ignore
Message-ID: <mailman.201.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006010_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Sorry for the inconvience, Just testing mail flow.
Please ignore.
thank you
Peggy V.
LSI


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Jun  1 11:03:07 2010
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:03:07 -0600
Subject: FW: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
Message-ID: <mailman.202.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
I have posted a new version of SPL. This version has all changes made as a
result of letter ballot marked with strikeouts and underlines. The changes
|from revision 6c to 6d are indicated by change bars.
For those of you who are interested in the phy power management should look
at:
- The PS_ACK section (6.2.6.11 PS_ACK)
- The PS_NAK section (6.2.6.12 PS_NAK)
- Section 6.11 Entering low phy power condition (Note that there is now a
PS_ACK pattern)
- In the CC and XL state machines the term PS_ACK/Idle Dwords has been
replaced with PS_ACK pattern.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:00 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: John Lohmeyer
Subject: Re: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
2010/06/01 11:00:26 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl-r06d.pdf
Source File(s) that will be archived are:
   SPL-r06d.zip will be archived as spl-r06d.zip
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
should you need further assistance.
"Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
> From: "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> To: T10 Working Draft Administrator <docs at t10.org>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:49:58 -0600
> Subject: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
> Extracted-To: AutoPWD
> 
> 
> 
> Bye for now, 
> George Penokie
>  
> LSI Corporation 
> 3033 41st St. NW 
> Suite 100 
> Rochester, MN 55901
>  
> 507-328-9017 
> george.penokie at lsi.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:04 AM
> To: Penokie, George
> Subject: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
> 
> 2010/06/01 10:04:27 
> 
> Your T10 working draft request has been approved and
> the following working draft revision was assigned:
> 
>	Project: SPL
> Working Draft: spl-r06d
>   Upload Code: AC_05814sS7fFbnioj
>    Draft_Date: 2010/06/01
>  Draft_Author: George Penokie
>   Draft_Title: SAS Protocol Layer (SPL)
> 
> ## Please reply to this email and attach your working draft to
> ## the reply email.  Please attach both the source file and a
> ## PDF file made from your source file.  The source file may be
> ## ZIP'd, but the PDF file must not be ZIP'd.
> ##
> ## Please generate your PDF files for posting to be compatible 
> ## with Acrobat 4.0 (PDF 1.3). (This parameter is set in 
> ## Distiller, Settings, Job Options, Compatibility.)
> ##
> ## If you cannot create PDF files, your upload will be
> ## forwarded to an administrator.  This will delay your
> ## posting until the administrator can make the PDF file.
> ##
> ## It is strongly recommended that you provide the source file(s).
> ## The source file(s) will be archived in case the PDF file must
> ## be re-created.
> ##
> ## It is critical that your reply email include the above
> ## Upload Code.  Without it, your posting cannot be processed.
> ## The filenames you use are not important as long as the
> ## extensions are correct.
> ##
> ##
> ##  CHANGING YOUR MIND
> ##  ------------------
> ##
> ## If you wish to cancel this working draft, reply to this eamil
> ## without any attachments and edit the following line to change
> ## the word no to yes:
> ##
>    Cancel_Working_Draft: no
> ##
> ##
> ##  EDITING WORKING DRAFT INFORMATION
> ##  ---------------------------------
> ##
> ## If one of the above fields Draft Date, Draft Author, or
> ## Draft Title is no longer accurate, you may edit it as
> ## necessary.
> ##
> ## If you do not want this working draft to be made the current
> ## working draft for your project on the T10 web site, edit the
> ## following line to change the word yes to no:
> ##
>    Set_as_Current_Revision_on_web_site: yes
> ##
> ## Please note that changing the above parameter only affects the
> ## links on the "Draft Standards and Technical Reports" and the
> ## "SCSI-3 Standards Architecture" web pages. This working draft
> ## will still appear in the next mailing.
> ##
> ##  COPYRIGHT POLICY
> ##  ----------------
> ##
> ## Do not post working drafts containing a copyright statement
> ## other than the INCITS copyright statement.
> 
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.zip"
> 
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.pdf"
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From richard.bohn at seagate.com  Tue Jun  1 12:40:55 2010
From: richard.bohn at seagate.com (Richard Bohn)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:40:55 -0500
Subject: FW: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
Message-ID: <mailman.203.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006012_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I'm not in favor of the wording of the PS_NAK section (6.2.6.12 PS_NAK) as I
don't think we should strictly limit the reasons for sending PS_NAK as this
new paragraph appears to do.
In my view, devices should have some freedom in determining whether to ACK /
NAK a power condition request once the feature is enabled on a link. The
recipient of the request may have knowledge outside of the specification in
addition to just being in "an attempt to establish a connection" that would
lead it want to NAK a request to balance the power / performance trade-off
of a particular system.
I'd suggest adding the following additional item to the list:
c) a PS_REQ is received and the request is disallowed for a vendor-specific
reason.
Richard Bohn
Office: 952-402-3848
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Penokie, George
<George.Penokie at lsi.com>wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> *
> I have posted a new version of SPL. This version has all changes made as a
> result of letter ballot marked with strikeouts and underlines. The changes
> from revision 6c to 6d are indicated by change bars.
>
> For those of you who are interested in the phy power management should look
> at:
>
> - The PS_ACK section (6.2.6.11 PS_ACK)
> - The PS_NAK section (6.2.6.12 PS_NAK)
> - Section 6.11 Entering low phy power condition (Note that there is now a
> PS_ACK pattern)
> - In the CC and XL state machines the term PS_ACK/Idle Dwords has been
> replaced with PS_ACK pattern.
>
> Bye for now,
> George Penokie
>
> LSI Corporation
> 3033 41st St. NW
> Suite 100
> Rochester, MN 55901
>
> 507-328-9017
> george.penokie at lsi.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
> Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:00 PM
> To: Penokie, George
> Cc: John Lohmeyer
> Subject: Re: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
>
> 2010/06/01 11:00:26
>
> Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
>
> Your file will be posted at:
>
>   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl-r06d.pdf
>
> Source File(s) that will be archived are:
>
>   SPL-r06d.zip will be archived as spl-r06d.zip
>
> Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
>
> Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
> should you need further assistance.
>
> "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
> > From: "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> > To: T10 Working Draft Administrator <docs at t10.org>
> > Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:49:58 -0600
> > Subject: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
> > Extracted-To: AutoPWD
> >
> >
> >
> > Bye for now,
> > George Penokie
> >
> > LSI Corporation
> > 3033 41st St. NW
> > Suite 100
> > Rochester, MN 55901
> >
> > 507-328-9017
> > george.penokie at lsi.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
> Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:04 AM
> > To: Penokie, George
> > Subject: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
> >
> > 2010/06/01 10:04:27
> >
> > Your T10 working draft request has been approved and
> > the following working draft revision was assigned:
> >
> >	  Project: SPL
> > Working Draft: spl-r06d
> >   Upload Code: AC_05814sS7fFbnioj
> >    Draft_Date: 2010/06/01
> >  Draft_Author: George Penokie
> >   Draft_Title: SAS Protocol Layer (SPL)
> >
> > ## Please reply to this email and attach your working draft to
> > ## the reply email.  Please attach both the source file and a
> > ## PDF file made from your source file.  The source file may be
> > ## ZIP'd, but the PDF file must not be ZIP'd.
> > ##
> > ## Please generate your PDF files for posting to be compatible
> > ## with Acrobat 4.0 (PDF 1.3). (This parameter is set in
> > ## Distiller, Settings, Job Options, Compatibility.)
> > ##
> > ## If you cannot create PDF files, your upload will be
> > ## forwarded to an administrator.  This will delay your
> > ## posting until the administrator can make the PDF file.
> > ##
> > ## It is strongly recommended that you provide the source file(s).
> > ## The source file(s) will be archived in case the PDF file must
> > ## be re-created.
> > ##
> > ## It is critical that your reply email include the above
> > ## Upload Code.  Without it, your posting cannot be processed.
> > ## The filenames you use are not important as long as the
> > ## extensions are correct.
> > ##
> > ##
> > ##	CHANGING YOUR MIND
> > ##	------------------
> > ##
> > ## If you wish to cancel this working draft, reply to this eamil
> > ## without any attachments and edit the following line to change
> > ## the word no to yes:
> > ##
> >    Cancel_Working_Draft: no
> > ##
> > ##
> > ##	EDITING WORKING DRAFT INFORMATION
> > ##	---------------------------------
> > ##
> > ## If one of the above fields Draft Date, Draft Author, or
> > ## Draft Title is no longer accurate, you may edit it as
> > ## necessary.
> > ##
> > ## If you do not want this working draft to be made the current
> > ## working draft for your project on the T10 web site, edit the
> > ## following line to change the word yes to no:
> > ##
> >    Set_as_Current_Revision_on_web_site: yes
> > ##
> > ## Please note that changing the above parameter only affects the
> > ## links on the "Draft Standards and Technical Reports" and the
> > ## "SCSI-3 Standards Architecture" web pages. This working draft
> > ## will still appear in the next mailing.
> > ##
> > ##	COPYRIGHT POLICY
> > ##	----------------
> > ##
> > ## Do not post working drafts containing a copyright statement
> > ## other than the INCITS copyright statement.
> >
> > Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.zip"
> >
> > Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.pdf"
>
> *
> * 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  Tue Jun  1 14:08:55 2010
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:08:55 -0600
Subject: FW: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
Message-ID: <mailman.204.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006013_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Richard,
The new wording you point out is only a reflection of what is already defined
in the state machines. Also, the list is not a list of requirements as there
is no shall, or should. There isn't even a may. It's just a statement of
fact.
If you are going to do that then I would have to add a statement like that to
all the other primitives that is a negative response.
That said, if Seagate wants to submit a late letter ballot comment then you
need to have one of your T10 representatives do so.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bohn
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:41 PM
To: T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org)
Subject: Re: FW: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
I'm not in favor of the wording of the PS_NAK section (6.2.6.12 PS_NAK) as I
don't think we should strictly limit the reasons for sending PS_NAK as this
new paragraph appears to do.
In my view, devices should have some freedom in determining whether to ACK /
NAK a power condition request once the feature is enabled on a link. The
recipient of the request may have knowledge outside of the specification in
addition to just being in "an attempt to establish a connection" that would
lead it want to NAK a request to balance the power / performance trade-off of
a particular system.
I'd suggest adding the following additional item to the list:
c) a PS_REQ is received and the request is disallowed for a vendor-specific
reason.
Richard Bohn
Office: 952-402-3848
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Penokie, George
<George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
I have posted a new version of SPL. This version has all changes made as a
result of letter ballot marked with strikeouts and underlines. The changes
|from revision 6c to 6d are indicated by change bars.
For those of you who are interested in the phy power management should look
at:
- The PS_ACK section (6.2.6.11 PS_ACK)
- The PS_NAK section (6.2.6.12 PS_NAK)
- Section 6.11 Entering low phy power condition (Note that there is now a
PS_ACK pattern)
- In the CC and XL state machines the term PS_ACK/Idle Dwords has been
replaced with PS_ACK pattern.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com
[mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:00 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: John Lohmeyer
Subject: Re: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
2010/06/01 11:00:26
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your file will be posted at:
  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl-r06d.pdf
Source File(s) that will be archived are:
  SPL-r06d.zip will be archived as spl-r06d.zip
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org<mailto:lohmeyer at t10.org>>
should you need further assistance.
"Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
wrote:
> From: "Penokie, George"
<George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> To: T10 Working Draft Administrator <docs at t10.org<mailto:docs at t10.org>>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:49:58 -0600
> Subject: RE: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
> Extracted-To: AutoPWD
>
>
>
> Bye for now,
> George Penokie
>
> LSI Corporation
> 3033 41st St. NW
> Suite 100
> Rochester, MN 55901
>
> 507-328-9017
> george.penokie at lsi.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com
[mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Working Draft Administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:04 AM
> To: Penokie, George
> Subject: T10 Working Draft Assignment: spl-r06d
>
> 2010/06/01 10:04:27
>
> Your T10 working draft request has been approved and
> the following working draft revision was assigned:
>
>	Project: SPL
> Working Draft: spl-r06d
>   Upload Code: AC_05814sS7fFbnioj
>    Draft_Date: 2010/06/01
>  Draft_Author: George Penokie
>   Draft_Title: SAS Protocol Layer (SPL)
>
> ## Please reply to this email and attach your working draft to
> ## the reply email.  Please attach both the source file and a
> ## PDF file made from your source file.  The source file may be
> ## ZIP'd, but the PDF file must not be ZIP'd.
> ##
> ## Please generate your PDF files for posting to be compatible
> ## with Acrobat 4.0 (PDF 1.3). (This parameter is set in
> ## Distiller, Settings, Job Options, Compatibility.)
> ##
> ## If you cannot create PDF files, your upload will be
> ## forwarded to an administrator.  This will delay your
> ## posting until the administrator can make the PDF file.
> ##
> ## It is strongly recommended that you provide the source file(s).
> ## The source file(s) will be archived in case the PDF file must
> ## be re-created.
> ##
> ## It is critical that your reply email include the above
> ## Upload Code.  Without it, your posting cannot be processed.
> ## The filenames you use are not important as long as the
> ## extensions are correct.
> ##
> ##
> ##  CHANGING YOUR MIND
> ##  ------------------
> ##
> ## If you wish to cancel this working draft, reply to this eamil
> ## without any attachments and edit the following line to change
> ## the word no to yes:
> ##
>    Cancel_Working_Draft: no
> ##
> ##
> ##  EDITING WORKING DRAFT INFORMATION
> ##  ---------------------------------
> ##
> ## If one of the above fields Draft Date, Draft Author, or
> ## Draft Title is no longer accurate, you may edit it as
> ## necessary.
> ##
> ## If you do not want this working draft to be made the current
> ## working draft for your project on the T10 web site, edit the
> ## following line to change the word yes to no:
> ##
>    Set_as_Current_Revision_on_web_site: yes
> ##
> ## Please note that changing the above parameter only affects the
> ## links on the "Draft Standards and Technical Reports" and the
> ## "SCSI-3 Standards Architecture" web pages. This working draft
> ## will still appear in the next mailing.
> ##
> ##  COPYRIGHT POLICY
> ##  ----------------
> ##
> ## Do not post working drafts containing a copyright statement
> ## other than the INCITS copyright statement.
>
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.zip"
>
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\SPL-r06d.pdf"
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to
majordomo at t10.org<mailto:majordomo at t10.org>


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Tue Jun  1 16:26:15 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:26:15 -0700
Subject: 10-068r2: Clarify LOAD, HOLD, RETEN bits
Message-ID: <mailman.205.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006014_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

SSC-4 interested parties, I have uploaded what I believe is the current 
state of this proposal after the May face-to-face.  We all have an action 
item to discuss this with our teams to see if we can agree to any changes. 
 As you may recall, the proposal originally assumed the RETEN bit was 
always set to zero.  For those conditions where the RETEN bit is set to 
one, if Vendor A & Vendor B are listed as agreeing, then the author of the 
proposal has no objection to adopting that behavior.  There should be very 
few places that the author's company and vendor A and vendor B disagree.
Whomever cares about this behavior should review the proposal (the new 
tables the describe the behavior) and provide feedback by the beginning of 
SSC working group meeting in July.
2010/06/01 17:20:37 
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=10-068r2.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 Mark.Evans at wdc.com  Thu Jun  3 14:28:07 2010
From: Mark.Evans at wdc.com (Mark Evans)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:28:07 -0700
Subject: Obsoleting 7-byte parameters in the Non-volatile Cache log page
Message-ID: <mailman.206.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006030_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hello all,
While discussing proposal 09-293, SBC-3: Log page clean-up, at the CAP
meeting in May, it was noted that the Remaining Non-volatile Time parameter
and the Maximum Non-volatile Time parameter in the Non-volatile Cache log
page are each seven bytes in length.  However, we have been trying to insure
that all SCSI parameters are four-byte aligned.
It was suggested that these two parameters be made obsolete and be replaced
with two new parameters that report the same information but are eight bytes
in length.  If there are no objections, I will do so by increasing the TIME
field to four bytes for the new parameters in the next revision of my
proposal, and I will give the parameters slightly different names.  I will
also add a note as to why this action was taken.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com


From Elliott at hp.com  Thu Jun  3 17:06:29 2010
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:06:29 +0000
Subject: Obsoleting 7-byte parameters in the Non-volatile Cache log page
Message-ID: <mailman.207.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006031_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Although I agree the current definitions are unclear and new parameter codes
are the best way to fix the problem, I'd like to describe how it got
confused.
The PARAMETER LENGTH field shown in SBC-2 for each of these parameter codes
was not intended to represent the PARAMETER LENGTH field in the 4-byte
parameter header. It is an (unnecessary) extra length field inside the
PARAMETER DATA field itself. So, implementations should have been:
		Byte(s) Field
Header 0:1	    PARAMETER CODE (0000h or 0001h)
Header 2	      Parameter control byte
Header 3	      PARAMETER LENGTH (04h)
Value	 4		PARAMETER LENGTH (03h)
Value	 5:7	      REMAINING NON-VOLATILE TIME   or MAXIMUM NON-VOLATILE
TIME
That would have allowed the value region for one parameter code to be
expanded to carry multiple subfields if needed.
Another plausible resolution would be to make the extra length field
Obsolete. If we are worried that some implementation might have interpreted
that extra length field as the real length field, then obsoleting these
parameter codes and assigning new ones seems best.
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Mark Evans
Sent: Thursday, 03 June, 2010 4:28 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Obsoleting 7-byte parameters in the Non-volatile Cache log page
Hello all,
While discussing proposal 09-293, SBC-3: Log page clean-up, at the CAP
meeting in May, it was noted that the Remaining Non-volatile Time parameter
and the Maximum Non-volatile Time parameter in the Non-volatile Cache log
page are each seven bytes in length.  However, we have been trying to insure
that all SCSI parameters are four-byte aligned.
It was suggested that these two parameters be made obsolete and be replaced
with two new parameters that report the same information but are eight bytes
in length.  If there are no objections, I will do so by increasing the TIME
field to four bytes for the new parameters in the next revision of my
proposal, and I will give the parameters slightly different names.  I will
also add a note as to why this action was taken.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com


From Harvey.Newman at lsi.com  Fri Jun  4 15:43:50 2010
From: Harvey.Newman at lsi.com (Newman, Harvey)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:43:50 -0600
Subject: Files in sas21-r04b.zip
Message-ID: <mailman.208.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006040_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi Alvin,
In the sas21-r04b.zip we currently have StatEye_readme.pdf and 10-007r2.pdf. 
I do not believe we need both.
The files for the termination in the zip are called:
TxRefTerm.s4p and RxRefTerm.s4p
In the text of the specification there are referenced:
On page 156
The following Touchstone model of the reference transmitter device
termination is included with this standard:
a) SAS2_TxRefTerm.s4p.
On page 167
The following Touchstone model of the reference receiver device termination
is included with this standard:
c) SAS2_RxRefTerm.s4p.
Either editing the reference in the document or renaming the files in the zip
will solve this inconsistency.
Regards,
Harvey Newman
LSI Corporation


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun  5 23:00:51 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 00:00:51 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/05/30
Message-ID: <mailman.209.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SSC-4: Clarify load/unload behavior related to LOAD/HOLD bits
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-068r2   Uploaded: 2010/06/01   73200 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-068r2.pdf
SPL: Letter Ballot Resolution Document
(by: George Penokie)
T10/10-141r2   Uploaded: 2010/06/01   5484690 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-141r2.pdf
Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #97 - May 6, 2010
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/10-154r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/01   161580 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-154r1.htm
Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #97 - May 6, 2010
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/10-154r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/01   406187 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-154r1.pdf
SAT-3 Device Statistics Translation
(by: Jim Hatfield)
T10/10-192r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   15470 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-192r0.pdf
SAT-3 Updates to READ CAPACITY(10/16)
(by: Jim Hatfield)
T10/10-193r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   16201 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-193r0.pdf
SAT-3 WRITE BUFFER deferred microcode download and activation
(by: Jim Hatfield)
T10/10-194r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   51656 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-194r0.pdf
Results of Letter Ballot on recommendation on FDIS 14776-151 (SAS-1.1)
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/10-197r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   3151 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-197r0.pdf
Results of Letter Ballot on recommendation on FDIS 14776-151 (SAS-1.1)
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/10-197r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   4767 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-197r0.txt
SAT-3 REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES
(by: Jim Hatfield)
T10/10-199r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   16194 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-199r0.pdf
SPL - SAS Device Power Management (Letter Ballot Resolution)
(by: Kevin Marks)
T10/10-200r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/02   60614 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-200r0.pdf
OSD-3: Obsolete page-mode access to attributes pages
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-202r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/02   70301 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-202r0.pdf
SPL: Annex for SAS addressing
(by: George Penokie)
T10/10-205r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/01   54278 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-205r0.pdf
SPC-4: Informational Exceptions Control mode page clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-206r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/02   61493 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-206r0.pdf
AER Obsolete bits in SPC-4
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/10-208r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/02   123573 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-208r0.pdf
SPC-4/SBC-3: Tweaks to power state machines found during SPL LB
Resolution
(by: Kevin Marks)
T10/10-210r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/03   110622 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-210r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SAS Protocol Layer (SPL)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 06d      Uploaded: 2010/06/01   8310382 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl-r06d.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/06/06 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 kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Tue Jun  8 16:20:03 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:20:03 -0700
Subject: ADI; SSC: 10-166r1 Force Compression updated
Message-ID: <mailman.210.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006080_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have updated the Force Compression proposal.
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-166r1.pdf
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 George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Jun  9 09:58:49 2010
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:58:49 -0600
Subject: Removal of a two_dword phy test pattern example from SPL
Message-ID: <mailman.211.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006090_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006090_image002.png">image002.png</a>

I have received the following letter ballot on SPL. Unless someone objects I
plan on accepting it.
Delete this pattern from the list.  Although SAS-1.1 specified using that
pattern for external cable assembly DJ testing, SAS-2 no longer does so.
Table 190 - TWO_DWORDS phy test pattern examples
[cid:image002.png at 01CB07CB.1F493CC0]
The main reason for deleting this is because getting a lone-bit pattern
depends on the disparity:
Given:
D11.7 = EBh
-110100 1110
+110100 1000
D20.7 = F4h
-001011 0111
+001011 0001
EBF4EBF4h only provides lone-bits for + starting disparity:
(+110100 1000 -001011 0111) (+110100 1000 -001011 0111)
		 ^lone-bit	 ^lone-bit
and none for - starting disparity:
(-110100 1110 +001011 0001) (-110100 1110 +001011 0001)
      (no lone-bits)
The F4EBF4EBh order is needed to provide lone-bits for - starting disparity:
(-001011 0111 +110100 1000) (-001011 0111 +110100 1000)
		  ^lone-bit	^lone-bit
but yields none for - starting disparity:
(+001011 0001 -110100 1110) (+001011 0001 -110100 1110)
      (no lone-bits)
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Jun  9 15:35:40 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:35:40 -0600
Subject: Deadline for July T10 reservations is Friday, June 11th
Message-ID: <mailman.212.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Okay procrastinators, it is time to make your T10 hotel reservations for the
July 12-15 meeting in Colorado Springs. The meeting announcement is available
at:
  http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/announce/ann-m098.pdf
Please use the URL in the meeting announcement to get into the group rate.
This guarantees that LSI gets credit for your stay and helps support the
meetings.
Colorado Springs is a popular destination during the summer months, so room
availability can be a problem after the cut-off date. If you do not have trip
approval yet, I recommend making a room reservation anyway. You can cancel it
without a penalty as long as you do so at least 2 days before your arrival
date.
You may want to check the airfares into Denver vs Colorado Springs. Lately
some Colorado Springs fares have been much higher than using DIA. If you do
fly into DIA and use the E-470 toll road, make sure you understand how your
rental car company will deal with the tolls: They bill the rental car company
directly by either using a toll tag or taking a picture of the license plate.
Parking at the hotel is included in the group rate; make sure to get a
parking pass when you check into your room.
LOCALS: There will be a parking validation stamp for your daytime parking;
bring your parking ticket with you to the meeting rooms.
Please let me know if you have any questions or problems getting into the
group rate.
--
John Lohmeyer		       Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Corp.		       Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.		Cell: +1-719-338-1642
Colo Spgs, CO 80907
*
* 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 Jun 12 23:00:50 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:50 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/06/06
Message-ID: <mailman.213.1441607359.22518.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)
T10/09-293r2   Uploaded: 2010/06/08   139011 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-293r2.pdf
SSC-4: Clarify load/unload behavior related to LOAD/HOLD bits
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-068r3   Uploaded: 2010/06/11   103698 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-068r3.pdf
SPC-4: Self-test and SEND DIAGNOSTIC command clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-144r2   Uploaded: 2010/06/08   96694 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-144r2.pdf
ADC-3; SSC-4: Force Compression
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-166r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/08   151102 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-166r1.pdf
SPC-4: Informational Exceptions Control mode page clean-up
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-206r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/08   62277 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-206r1.pdf
SAS 3.0 HD connector requirements
(by: Mickey Felton)
T10/10-211r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/09   41108 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-211r0.pdf
SPL:  WD comment resolution proposal for SAS speed negotiation
sequence example
(by: Mark Evans)
T10/10-212r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/09   26910 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-212r0.pdf
SSC-4: SPT bit and logical block protection
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-213r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/10   43900 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-213r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
(Report generated on 2010/06/13 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 George.Penokie at lsi.com  Mon Jun 14 09:40:51 2010
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:40:51 -0600
Subject: Next SPL letter ballot review is tomorrow (6/15)
Message-ID: <mailman.214.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
This is a reminder that there will be a SPL letter ballot review meeting
tomorrow (6/15) at 10 am CST.
The review will start in  section 6.18.2.2 SATA frame buffering. There are
many comments on this section specifically on notes 64, 65, and 66 that
define in great detail the STP flow control buffer sizes for various
connector types and lengths of cables. It would be nice if you care about
this that you take a look at the comments before the meeting.
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 curtis.ballard at hp.com  Tue Jun 15 14:32:40 2010
From: curtis.ballard at hp.com (Ballard, Curtis C (StorageWorks))
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:32:40 +0000
Subject: SMC-3 Conference call Wenesday June 23rd at 8:00 AM PST for 2 hours
Message-ID: <mailman.215.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006150_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The SMC-3 working group will hold a conference call on Wednesday, June 23rd
at 8:00 AM PST for 2 hours hosted by HP.
The first topic of discussion will be agenda item 6.4, SMC-3: Volume
Replication Visibility.  Other items will be covered following that
discussion if time allows.
-----------------------------------------
Agenda:1.   Opening remarks and introductions
1.1    Antitrust Guidelines and INCITS Patent Policy
	       (http://www.incits.org/pat_slides.pdf)
1.2    Meeting Documents
1.3    Introductions
2.   Approval of the Agenda
3.   Attendance and Membership
4.   Approval of previous meeting minutes <skipped for conference calls>
5.   Review of action items
6.   Old Business
6.1    Working List for ISV feedback (SMC/SSC/ADC/SPC)
(09-336r1<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-336r1.pdf&gt;) [Butt]
6.2    SMC-3 TapeAlert Enhancements
(09-109r6<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-109r6.pdf&gt;) [Ballard]
6.3    SMC-3 New additional sense codes tracking document
(08-272r3<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=08-272r3.pdf&gt;) [Wideman]
6.4    SMC-3: Volume Replication Visibility, Rev 10
(10-215r0<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-215r0.pdf&gt;) [Cummings]
6.5    SMC-3 Element Location page for Report Element Information cmd
(10-101r0<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-101r0.pdf&gt;) [Ballard]
6.6    SMC-3 Current Service Information log page and capacity warn
(10-102r0<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-102r0.pdf&gt;) [Ballard]
6.7    SMC-3:RES Capability Mapping to REI and RVI Commands
(10-171r1<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-171r1.pdf&gt;) [Wideman]
7.   New Business
8.   Check on plans for letter ballot
9.   Next Meeting Requirements
10.  Review New Action Items
11.  Adjournment
-----------------------------------------
Desktop sharing link:
https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=EHSLHX3D7K
Conference Call Number:
1-877-675-4345, PIN: 8983013
-----------------------------------------
Conference Call Passcode:	 8983013
Conference Call Access Numbers:
U.S. (toll) dial-in number	 281.964.1607
U.S. toll-free dial-in number	 877.675.4345
Germany 			 069-22-221-6176 or 800-664-7543
Netherlands - Amsterdam 	 020-714-3562 or 0800-023-5079
Norway - Oslo			 21-033-192 or 800-18-430
United Kingdom			 0844-579-0686 or 0808-238-0672
Curtis Ballard
Hewlett Packard
StorageWorks Platforms Tape
Fort Collins, CO
(970) 898-3013


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Fri Jun 18 15:25:56 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:25:56 -0700
Subject: SPC-4: Dynamic Runtime Attributes (10-209r2)
Message-ID: <mailman.216.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006180_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have posted a proposal to add a new feature to be used by device error 
logs and for return to a manually invoked command by support personnel or 
customers.  A few people have seen the previous versions and I would 
advise them to read the introduction before commenting or reviewing. Since 
this is the first time I have targeted SPC-4 there are no change bars from 
the previous versions.
2010/06/18 16:08:23 
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=10-209r2.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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun 19 23:00:51 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:00:51 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/06/13
Message-ID: <mailman.217.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SSC-4: Dynamic Runtime Attributes
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-209r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/14   176003 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-209r0.pdf
SSC-4: Dynamic Runtime Attributes
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-209r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/17   306134 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-209r1.pdf
SPC-4: Dynamic Runtime Attributes
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-209r2   Uploaded: 2010/06/18   310621 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-209r2.pdf
SPC-4/SBC-3: Tweaks to power state machines found during SPL LB
Resolution
(by: Kevin Marks)
T10/10-210r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/16   114389 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-210r1.pdf
SMC-3: Volume Replication Visibility, Rev 10
(by: Roger Cummings)
T10/10-215r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/15   193460 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-215r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
(Report generated on 2010/06/20 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 madhukar.gubba at gmail.com  Tue Jun 22 06:49:20 2010
From: madhukar.gubba at gmail.com (Madhukar)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:19:20 +0530
Subject: Multiple Command Sequence in USB3
Message-ID: <mailman.218.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Madhukar <madhukar.gubba at gmail.com>
*
Hi All,
I have gone through the UASP specification. However, I did not find
any sequence diagram which illustrates the multiple (not
bidirectional) commands scenario. So, I followed the UAS
specification, which has a sequence diagram for multiple command
scenario. According to that, I should issue multiple COMMAND IUs and
wait for a callback before actually transmitting the data. But, in the
UASP specification, it says I should submit the SENSEIU, followed by
DATA, which is followed by COMMAND IU. So, I am little confused on the
multiple command scenario. My current implementation in host side has
the below mentioned sequence.
Current Case
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 1
?	Submit DATA for Tag1
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag1
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 2
?	Submit DATA for Tag2
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag2
?	Received ACK for COMMAND IU of Tag2
?	Received DATA transfer complete callback of Tag2
?	Received SENSEIU complete callback of Tag2
?????????same for Tag1
Is this sequence appropriate? or should it be like this
Theoretical Alternative
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag1
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag2
?	Received ACK for COMMAND IU of Tag2
?	Submit DATA for Tag2
?	Received DATA transfer complete callback of Tag2
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 2
?	Received SENSEIU complete callback of Tag2
?????????same for Tag1
Thanks in advance.
Thanks and Regards,
Madhukar
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From TomF at illuminosi.com  Tue Jun 22 10:20:09 2010
From: TomF at illuminosi.com (Tom Friend)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:20:09 -0700
Subject: Multiple Command Sequence in USB3
Message-ID: <mailman.219.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Tom Friend <TomF at illuminosi.com>
*
It is my understanding that each command transmission is an atomic operation.
That is why you found no such example. Please do not intermix the
transactions as that will  potentially confuse some devices.
Having said that, what you ask of the HC and what it may really do under high
traffic conditions can be very different.
Thomas Friend
Technical Liaison Manager
PLX Technology Inc.
(aka Oxford Semiconductor)
+1 (360) 860-1831      US mobile
+44 (0)7539 55 03 54  UK mobile
tom.friend.oxsemi	Skype
-----Original Message-----
From: Madhukar <madhukar.gubba at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:22 PM
To: t10 at t10.org <t10 at t10.org>
Subject: Multiple Command Sequence in USB3
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Madhukar <madhukar.gubba at gmail.com>
*
Hi All,
I have gone through the UASP specification. However, I did not find
any sequence diagram which illustrates the multiple (not
bidirectional) commands scenario. So, I followed the UAS
specification, which has a sequence diagram for multiple command
scenario. According to that, I should issue multiple COMMAND IUs and
wait for a callback before actually transmitting the data. But, in the
UASP specification, it says I should submit the SENSEIU, followed by
DATA, which is followed by COMMAND IU. So, I am little confused on the
multiple command scenario. My current implementation in host side has
the below mentioned sequence.
Current Case
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 1
?	Submit DATA for Tag1
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag1
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 2
?	Submit DATA for Tag2
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag2
?	Received ACK for COMMAND IU of Tag2
?	Received DATA transfer complete callback of Tag2
?	Received SENSEIU complete callback of Tag2
?????????same for Tag1
Is this sequence appropriate? or should it be like this
Theoretical Alternative
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag1
?	Submit COMMAND IU for Tag2
?	Received ACK for COMMAND IU of Tag2
?	Submit DATA for Tag2
?	Received DATA transfer complete callback of Tag2
?	Submit SENSE IU for Tag 2
?	Received SENSEIU complete callback of Tag2
?????????same for Tag1
Thanks in advance.
Thanks and Regards,
Madhukar
*
* 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


From roweber at IEEE.org  Wed Jun 23 14:23:36 2010
From: roweber at IEEE.org (Ralph Weber)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:23:36 -0500
Subject: SPC-4 r25 is posted
Message-ID: <mailman.220.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Here, for your Power Management pleasure, is the next
SPC-4 revision.
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r25.pdf
If you find Power Management goofs, please be sure they
are not already covered in:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-210r1.pdf
All the best,
.Ralph
*
* 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  Wed Jun 23 16:55:25 2010
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:25 -0700
Subject: SSC-4: Exceeding 4-byte LBAs (10-091r4) uploaded
Message-ID: <mailman.221.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1006231_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have updated my tape proposal on how to handle greater than 4-bye LBA's
2010/06/23 17:52:26 
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=10-091r4.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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun 26 23:00:51 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:00:51 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2010/06/20
Message-ID: <mailman.222.1441607359.22518.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SSC-4: Exceeding 4-byte LBAs
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-091r4   Uploaded: 2010/06/23   407137 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-091r4.pdf
Add SAT-specific command reservations and CbCS
(by: Brad Besmer)
T10/10-145r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/22   16987 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-145r1.pdf
SMC-3: Volume Replication Visibility, Rev 11
(by: Roger Cummings)
T10/10-215r1   Uploaded: 2010/06/23   195125 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-215r1.pdf
T11 Liaison Report, Junel 2010
(by: Steven Wilson)
T10/10-216r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/21   18520 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-216r0.pdf
Confirm Repurposed Volume Default State
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/10-218r0   Uploaded: 2010/06/25   83915 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-218r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
Automation/Drive Interface - Transport Protocol - 2 ADT-2)
(Editor: Paul Stone)
 Rev: 09       Uploaded: 2010/06/22   767814 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=adt2r09.pdf
SCSI Primary Commands - 4 (SPC-4)
(Editor: Ralph Weber)
 Rev: 25       Uploaded: 2010/06/23   4943795 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r25.pdf
(Report generated on 2010/06/27 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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Mon Jun 28 01:00:00 2010
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 List Manager)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:00:00 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector Monthly Reminder
Message-ID: <mailman.223.1441607359.22518.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