From WHubis at fusionio.com  Fri Aug  2 07:16:39 2013
From: WHubis at fusionio.com (Walter Hubis)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:16:39 +0000
Subject: T10 Atomic Read and Write Conference Call 
Message-ID: <mailman.357.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308020_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308020_nameless-4052-3.txt">nameless-4052-3.txt</a>

Here's the WebEx information for the T10 Atomic Write Proposal	meeting at
3:00PM CST Wednesday, August 7, 2013:
Topic: T10 Atomic Read and Write
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Time: 3:00 pm, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 621 834 114
Meeting Password: t10atomic
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://fusionio.webex.com/fusionio/j.php?ED=259372482&UID=0&PW=NYmU1NzE0YTJi
&RT=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: t10atomic
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://fusionio.webex.com/fusionio/j.php?ED=259372482&UID=0&PW=NYmU1NzE0YTJi
&ORT=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the audio conference only
-------------------------------------------------------
To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the meeting,
or call the number below and enter the access code.
Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-877-668-4490
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300
Global call-in numbers:
https://fusionio.webex.com/fusionio/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=259372
482&tollFree=1
Toll-free dialing restrictions:
http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf
Access code: 621 834 114
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://fusionio.webex.com/fusionio/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
You can contact me at:
whubis at fusionio.com
-Walt
---
Walt Hubis
Storage Standards Architect
Fusion-io
Phone: (+1) 303.641.8528
Email: whubis at fusionio.com


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Fri Aug  2 08:25:17 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:25:17 -0500
Subject: A question about REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES behavior
Message-ID: <mailman.358.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308021_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
The SUPPORT field in the One_command parameter data has one value (101b)
described as "the device server supports the requested command in a vendor
specific manner". Its not clear what the intended use is.
Should this value be returned if the device supports one of the vendor
specific operation codes? Since the operation code is already defined as
vendor specific, isn't this redundant? It is already expected to be vendor
specific, so this is not unusual.
Should this value be returned for obsolete commands that are supported?
Or should use of this support code be limited to standard commands in which
a reserved field is used in a vendor specific manner?


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Aug  3 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/07/28
Message-ID: <mailman.359.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
FDIS on Optical Memory Card Device Commands (OMC)
(by: ISO/IEC)
T10/00-151r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/01   15003 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=00-151r0.pdf
SAM-5 SBC-4 SPC-5  Command Deadlines
(by: Dan Colegrove)
T10/12-425r6   Uploaded: 2013/07/29   96998 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-425r6.pdf
SSC-5: Logical Block Protection Length error example
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/13-049r1   Uploaded: 2013/08/01   58701 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-049r1.pdf
PQI Sub-Letter Ballot Comments For PQI-R06G
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-069r3   Uploaded: 2013/08/01   4470033 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-069r3.fdf
PQI Sub-Letter Ballot Comments For PQI-R06G
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-069r3   Uploaded: 2013/08/01   86070 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-069r3.pdf
PQI Sub-Letter Ballot Comments For PQI-R06G
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-069r3   Uploaded: 2013/08/01   576000 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-069r3.xls
SSC: Cleaning Model
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/13-198r0   Uploaded: 2013/07/31   59540 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-198r0.pdf
SPL-3: Missing Obsolete Notation
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-206r0   Uploaded: 2013/07/29   58727 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-206r0.pdf
Meeting Announcement: T10 Week Nov 4-8, 2013 -- Tucson, AZ
(by: Chris Lyon)
T10/13-207r0   Uploaded: 2013/07/29   39355 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-207r0.pdf
SPL-3: Would Hunt
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-208r0   Uploaded: 2013/07/29   93045 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-208r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
PCIe(r) architecture Queuing Interface (PQI)
(Editor: Ie-Wei Njoo)
 Rev: 06k      Uploaded: 2013/08/01   2321748 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=pqi-r06k.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/08/04 at 00:01:29)
*
* 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 Aug  5 10:45:13 2013
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:45:13 -0700
Subject: 12-425r6 Command Deadlines (Command Deadline Descriptor Issue)
Message-ID: <mailman.360.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308050_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I reviewed 12-425r6 and have found the following issue.
The Command Deadline Time mode page (8.7.3)  provides a 4-byte descriptor 
for Command deadline time which is defined as being in units of 
microseconds.  If this mode page is in SPC-5, then it should provide 
sufficient time for all command set standards (e.g., SSC).  A 4-byte 
deadline time of microseconds provides for a maximum of 2^32 
(4,294,967,296) microseconds which is less than 1.2 hours.  SSC devices 
have commands that can take up to 6 hours.  This duration often grows with 
tape length and density.  As such, I see this mode page as being too 
limited to be able to be used for some SSC commands.
This mode page either belongs in SBC or the descriptor needs to be 
expanded to provide for use by SSC devices.
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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  Tue Aug  6 07:00:06 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:00:06 -0600
Subject: Today's SBC-3 letter ballot resolutions call
Message-ID: <mailman.361.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308060_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

In case you were thinking today's SBC-3 letter ballot call would not be worth
calling in for because the only comments left are at the end of the standard
you are so wrong. Rob Elliott has submitted  a whole new pile of comments
(about 170) of which many are in the model section. After sifting through
them and updating the comments document the result is that the number of
remaining comments went from about  40 comments at the end standard to about
100 comments many in the model.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com


From dave.b.anderson at seagate.com  Tue Aug  6 07:58:41 2013
From: dave.b.anderson at seagate.com (Dave B Anderson)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 09:58:41 -0500
Subject: Minutes of SMR Study Group July 18, 2013
Message-ID: <mailman.362.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Dave B Anderson <dave.b.anderson at seagate.com>
*
I have as well.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, James Borden <James.Borden at wdc.com> wrote:
> I am in
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 6, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Ric Wheeler" <rwheeler at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a note, the Linux Plumbers event is close to full. If anyone intends
to go, you should register now :)
>>
>> Ric
>>
>>
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From mickey.felton at emc.com  Wed Aug  7 08:20:00 2013
From: mickey.felton at emc.com (Felton, Mickey)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:20:00 +0000
Subject: Sept: Reminder to book reservations.
Message-ID: <mailman.363.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308070_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Dear September T10 Guests: Reminder we are obligated to have everyone booked
by the end of next week, Aug 16th for the hotel to start to release rooms for
other types of bookings. It appears we have around 30 people who have already
reserved, and took most if not all the King rooms at this point. There are
Queen rooms available but they are handicap accessible if a bigger bed over
double is required. Thank you for taking the time to do book this week.
http://doubletree.hilton.com/en/dt/groups/personalized/B/BOSWTDT-E10-20130916
/index.jhtml
Reminder there will be a dinner provided by TE/Madison on Tuesday of the
meeting week, and lunches are provided by the hotel in buffet form every day
of the meeting.
For new T10 guests please read the INCITS Chair's message on staying at the
recommended hotel and booking with the T10-Rate $200.00:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-341r0.pdf
Look forward to seeing everyone in Boston/Westborough next month.
Mick Felton


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Wed Aug  7 12:54:29 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:54:29 -0500
Subject: No webex planned for the September SMR study group meeting
Message-ID: <mailman.364.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308071_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
I am not hosting a webex/ telecon for the Sept. 19, 3:30 pm Eastern time
SMR study group meeting. Many of the interest parties that will not be at
the T10 meeting will be at the Linux Plumbers Conference in New Orleans
that day and a presentation of the SMR study group plans will be made
there. I have also learned that the hotel wants to charge $100 extra for
the use of a phone line even if I bring my own speaker phone -- this
doesn't seem to be worth it.


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Aug 10 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/08/04
Message-ID: <mailman.365.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SBC-4 SPC-5 Atomic writes and reads
(by: Rob Elliott, Ashish Batwara, Walt Hubis)
T10/13-064r3   Uploaded: 2013/08/06   360571 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-064r3.pdf
Transmittal letter on OIF CEI-28G-VSR and CEI-28G-MR Projects
(by: Jonathan Sadler)
T10/13-210r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/07   46820 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-210r0.pdf
OIF CEI-28G-VSR Project for T10 members only
(by: Jonathan Sadler)
T10/13-211r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/07   613397 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-211r0.pdf
OIF CEI-28G-MR Project for T10 members only
(by: Jonathan Sadler)
T10/13-212r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/07   541527 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-212r0.pdf
SBC-3 Define read, verify, and write operations
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-213r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/09   271421 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-213r0.pdf
SBC-3 Make COMPARE AND WRITE a read not verify command
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-214r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/09   121044 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-214r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
(Report generated on 2013/08/11 at 00:01:29)
*
* 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 Aug 14 09:26:10 2013
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:26:10 -0500
Subject: SAS PHY teleconference schedule
Message-ID: <mailman.366.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308140_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I am tentatively planning to have a teleconference on 8/29 at the usualtime
of 10:00 am CDT. If anyone has SAS-3 or SAS-4 items they would like to
discuss on that teleconference, please let me know and I will put them on
the agenda.
There are no calls scheduled prior to 8/29.
Confirmation of and agenda for the 8/29 teleconference will be posted to
the reflector 8/27.
Topic: SAS-3
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2013
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 827 988 093
Meeting Password: sas12gbps
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=158650437&UID=0&PW=NODQzMjNhYTdm&R
T=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: sas12gbps
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=158650437&UID=0&PW=NODQzMjNhYTdm&O
RT=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the audio conference only
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
SeaTel: 8-844-1000
United States: 1-952-230-1270
US Toll-Free: 1-855-856-8765
Singapore: 65-6485-3969
China-Beijing: 86-10-5875-1983
China-Shanghai: 86-21-6141-6283
China-Shenzhen: 86-755-2547-1583
China-Suzhou: 86-512-6273-5995
China-Wuxi: 86-510-8527-3993
Korea-Suwon: 82-31-8025-6006
Malaysia-Penang: 60-4-291-3598
Malaysia-Johore: 60-7-555-6767
Thailand-Teparuk: 66-2-715-7878
Thailand-Korat: 66-44-703599
Taiwan-Taipei: 886-2-2514-2211
2. Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 827 988 093
-------------------------------------------------------
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=158650437&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2
&ST=1&SHA2=pEI2tL0j5oE58s9ytOQWHuV98SACdVZgiFnrG-CNDds=&RT=MiM3
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
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio
and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the
session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent
to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your
concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do
not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject
to discovery in the event of litigation.
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From jwayda at radianmemory.com  Wed Aug 14 10:52:13 2013
From: jwayda at radianmemory.com (Jim Wayda)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:52:13 -0700
Subject: SCSI Linked Commands
Message-ID: <mailman.367.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308141_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have noticed that the concept of SCSI Linked Commands has been removed
|from relevant t10 specifications within the past several years. Is there
another implementation method that provides the same functionality?
Thanks,
-jim


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Wed Aug 14 12:12:20 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:12:20 -0500
Subject: SCSI Linked Commands
Message-ID: <mailman.368.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308142_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

It was removed more as a matter of "nobody used it anyway and allowing for
this feature in target designs was painful".
There are some new proposals that put some of this functionaly back in.
There is a proposal for WRITE and READ commands that have a scatter/gather
list attached and optionally have an "atomic" property that prevents other
commands from being processed.
There have also been an ORWRITE command defined and a COMPARE AND WRITE
command defined that do multiple operations in a single command, with no
allowance to be interrupted by any other command. Most people like this
better than linked commands.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Jim Wayda <jwayda at radianmemory.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that the concept of SCSI Linked Commands has been removed
> from relevant t10 specifications within the past several years. Is there
> another implementation method that provides the same functionality?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -jim
>


From mickey.felton at emc.com  Fri Aug 16 11:55:14 2013
From: mickey.felton at emc.com (Felton, Mickey)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:55:14 +0000
Subject: Sept: Reminder to book reservations.
Message-ID: <mailman.369.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308160_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

RE: Last reminder and issue with block:
Reminder to book your rooms, the last day is almost upon us.
Also Tuesday nite was filled up a few moments ago, so I'm asking the hotel to
open up some additional rooms on Tuesday nite, so please if you book, you may
need to call the hotel for the next couple of hours to work around the
Internet fill issue.
-Mick
From: Felton, Mickey
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:20 AM
To: Felton, Mickey; T10 Reflector
Subject: Sept: Reminder to book reservations.
Dear September T10 Guests: Reminder we are obligated to have everyone booked
by the end of next week, Aug 16th for the hotel to start to release rooms for
other types of bookings. It appears we have around 30 people who have already
reserved, and took most if not all the King rooms at this point. There are
Queen rooms available but they are handicap accessible if a bigger bed over
double is required. Thank you for taking the time to do book this week.
http://doubletree.hilton.com/en/dt/groups/personalized/B/BOSWTDT-E10-20130916
/index.jhtml
Reminder there will be a dinner provided by TE/Madison on Tuesday of the
meeting week, and lunches are provided by the hotel in buffet form every day
of the meeting.
For new T10 guests please read the INCITS Chair's message on staying at the
recommended hotel and booking with the T10-Rate $200.00:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=09-341r0.pdf
Look forward to seeing everyone in Boston/Westborough next month.
Mick Felton


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Aug 16 13:21:23 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:21:23 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG Telecon
Message-ID: <mailman.370.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308161_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308161_nameless-128-3.txt">nameless-128-3.txt</a>

SOPQI WG Telecon 26-Aug (Monday) @12:30 PT.
CURTIS STEVENS invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 273 303 818
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://premconf.webex.com/premconf/j.php?J=273303818
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does
not require a password.
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Teleconference information
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-877-860-3058  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-867-1571  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=9920374743&num=1877-860
-3058&num2=1719-867-1571
Attendee access code: 992 037 4743
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and
any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to
be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns
with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the
session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in
the event of litigation.


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Aug 16 13:21:59 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:21:59 +0000
Subject: SOPQI Telecon
Message-ID: <mailman.371.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308162_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308162_nameless-128-6.txt">nameless-128-6.txt</a>

SOPQI WG Telecon 19-Aug-2013 @12:30 PT
I know this is listed as no on the meeting list, but several people have
indicated that they could attend.
CURTIS STEVENS invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 279 158 456
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://premconf.webex.com/premconf/j.php?J=279158456
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does
not require a password.
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Teleconference information
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-877-860-3058  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-867-1571  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=9920374743&num=1877-860
-3058&num2=1719-867-1571
Attendee access code: 992 037 4743
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and
any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to
be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns
with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the
session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in
the event of litigation.


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Aug 16 13:19:55 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:19:55 +0000
Subject: SOPQI Telecon
Message-ID: <mailman.372.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308163_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308163_nameless-128-9.txt">nameless-128-9.txt</a>

I know this is listed as no on the meeting list, but several people have
indicated that they could attend.
CURTIS STEVENS invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 279 158 456
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://premconf.webex.com/premconf/j.php?J=279158456
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does
not require a password.
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Teleconference information
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-877-860-3058  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-867-1571  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=9920374743&num=1877-860
-3058&num2=1719-867-1571
Attendee access code: 992 037 4743
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and
any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to
be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns
with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the
session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in
the event of litigation.


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Aug 16 13:24:15 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:24:15 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG Telecon
Message-ID: <mailman.373.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308164_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308164_nameless-128-12.txt">nameless-128-12.txt</a>

SOPQI Telecon 9-Sep-2013 @12:30 PT
This meeting is scheduled as a maybe.  Adding meeting info just in case the
meeting is needed
CURTIS STEVENS invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 274 742 336
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://premconf.webex.com/premconf/j.php?J=274742336
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does
not require a password.
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Teleconference information
-------------------------------------------------------
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-877-860-3058  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-867-1571  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=9920374743&num=1877-860
-3058&num2=1719-867-1571
Attendee access code: 992 037 4743
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and
any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to
be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns
with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the
session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in
the event of litigation.


From mrajagopal at vmware.com  Fri Aug 16 18:14:35 2013
From: mrajagopal at vmware.com (mrajagopal at vmware.com)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:14:35 -0700
Subject: T10 Call for Discussing: Binding and Unbinding Subsidiary Logical
 Units
Message-ID: <mailman.374.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308165_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308165_meeting.ics">meeting.ics</a>

The following meeting has been modified:
Subject: T10 Call for Discussing: Binding and Unbinding Subsidiary Logical
Units 
Organizer: "Murali Rajagopal" <mrajagopal at vmware.com> 
Location: 1-866-715-6501: 741-764-4138 
Time: Wednesday, September 4, 2013, 1:00:00 PM - 2:00:00 PM GMT -08:00
US/Canada Pacific
Invitees: david.black at emc.com; Frederick.Knight at netapp.com;
George.Penokie at lsi.com; curtis.ballard at hp.com; ralph.weber at wdc.com;
t10 at t10.org; isokolin at vmware.com; taswatha at vmware.com; deepakb at vmware.com;
t10 at t10.org 
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Agenda, 
T10 Call for Discussing: Binding and Unbinding Subsidiary Logical Units 
See also 13-171r0 
Webex info below: 
Topic: Binding/Unbinding SLUs 
Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 
Time: 1:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) 
Meeting Number: 920 444 449 
Meeting Password: (This meeting does not require a password.) 
------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) 
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to https://vmware.webex.com/vmware/j.php?ED=235299447&UID=0&RT=MiM0 
2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: (This meeting does
not require a password.) 
4. Click "Join". 
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: 
https://vmware.webex.com/vmware/j.php?ED=235299447&UID=0&ORT=MiM0 
------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the teleconference only 
------------------------------------------------------- 
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-8667156501 (US) 
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=7417644138&num=18667156
501&num2=1 
Attendee access code: 741 764 4138 
Thanks, 
Murali 


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Aug 17 23:01:35 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:01:35 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/08/11
Message-ID: <mailman.375.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SPC-5 SPC-4 New LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY additional sense codes
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-209r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/12   202758 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-209r0.pdf
Project Proposal: Serial Attached SCSI - 4
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-215r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/13   99099 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-215r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
(Report generated on 2013/08/18 at 00:01:34)
*
* 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 Aug 20 10:21:01 2013
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:21:01 -0700
Subject: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Message-ID: <mailman.376.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308200_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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/ 
----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
From:	Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
To:	Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS, 
Date:	08/19/2013 06:20 PM
Subject:	Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Kevin, 
I completely disagree with this statement:
"A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical 
unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative 
requirement that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then I 
shall also  support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also 
states that I have to support the logical block provisioning mode page. 
I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that 
the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.", 
because that is already in the draft.	 I am not OK with the inverse. 
This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected: 
The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used 
resource counts in the LBP log page.  One could support providing of the 
log page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds. 
The response was: 
"No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page 
references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the 
i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent 
referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined 
in the VPD page. If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are 
non-zero then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied 
it is stated as such in the text."
The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains 
resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't 
see where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text. 
Feel free to forward this response. 
Roger G. Hathorn
STSM, Storage Systems Development
IBM Systems and Technology Group


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Wed Aug 21 07:08:02 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:08:02 -0500
Subject: SAM-5 rules on ACA condition
Message-ID: <mailman.377.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308210_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
SAM-5r14, clause 5.9 describes the rules for establishing and clearing an
ACA condition. It is pretty complete on rules for handing commands, but
doesn't say much about task management functions.
clause 5.9.5 gives rules for clearing ACA. These rules mention things that
are caused by some task manage menfunctions (i.e., logical unit reset and
I_T nexus loss) and has a rules for when CLEAR ACA task management function
has the effect of clearing an ACA, but it isn't clear how other TMFs should
be handled when an ACA condition is active.
It seems clear that TMFs from the faulting initiator should always be
accepted and processed (there is even a mode bit that says that only TMFs
may be accepted when that bit is set) but it is unclear whether a TMF (e.g.
ABORT TASK SET) should be accepted from a non-faulting initiator. There are
rules involving the TST bit that affect whether a command should be
accepted from a non-faulting initiator but it is unclear whenther these
same rules apply to accepting a TMF from a non-faulting initiator. It is
also unclear how to handle a TMF from a non-faulting initiator if the SCSI
target device is not supposed to accept it.
I would think if the target is not supposed to accept new commands from a
non-faulting initiator, then it shouldn't accept TMFs either, except for
the ones specifically described as clearing an ACA condition. Is that
correct? then if the TST bit is set in a way that permits new commands from
a non-faulting initiator to be processed, then TMFs from that initiator
should also be processed? There isn't any text in the ACA condition handing
clauses to confirm or deny those intended behaviors.


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Aug 21 09:17:38 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:17:38 -0600
Subject: Clarification on Optical Mode
Message-ID: <mailman.378.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308211_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

David,
This looks like a error in SPL and it should be COMINIT. I will write a
proposal to change the COMWAKE to COMINIT.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: David Freeman [mailto:David.Freeman at jdsu.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:03 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: Yamini Shastry; Geoff Hibbert
Subject: Clearification on Optical Mode
George,
In section 5.12.3.2.1 it says that when we enter this state if D.C. mode is
enabled then we send a COMINIT, however, if Optical Mode is enabled we send
OOB Idle for an RCDT time and then send a COMWAKE.
My question is why are we sending a COMWAKE instead of a COMINIT?
David Freeman
JDSU


From Frederick.Knight at netapp.com  Wed Aug 21 09:43:09 2013
From: Frederick.Knight at netapp.com (Knight, Frederick)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:43:09 +0000
Subject: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Message-ID: <mailman.379.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308212_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Yup, Kevin is correct.	We shouldn't really invert this because of the LOG
page use of this field.
		Fred
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Kevin D Butt
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Roger Hathorn; George.Penokie at lsi.com; T10 Reflector
Subject: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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/
----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
From:	     Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
To:	   Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS,
Date:	     08/19/2013 06:20 PM
Subject:	Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
________________________________
Kevin,
I completely disagree with this statement:
"A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical
unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative requirement
that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then I shall also 
support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also states that I have
to support the logical block provisioning mode page.
I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that
the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.",
because that is already in the draft.	 I am not OK with the inverse.
This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected:
The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used
resource counts in the LBP log page.  One could support providing of the log
page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds.
The response was:
"No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page
references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the
i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent
referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined in
the VPD page. If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are non-zero
then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied it is
stated as such in the text."
The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains
resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't see
where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text.
Feel free to forward this response.
Roger G. Hathorn
STSM, Storage Systems Development
IBM Systems and Technology Group
Tel: 520-799-5950 (T/L: 321-5950)


From David.Freeman at jdsu.com  Wed Aug 21 11:08:19 2013
From: David.Freeman at jdsu.com (David Freeman)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:08:19 +0000
Subject: Clarification on Optical Mode
Message-ID: <mailman.380.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308213_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Thank you.
David Freeman
JDSU
From: Penokie, George [mailto:George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:18 AM
To: David Freeman; Voorhees, Bill
Cc: Yamini Shastry; Geoff Hibbert; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on Optical Mode
David,
This looks like a error in SPL and it should be COMINIT. I will write a
proposal to change the COMWAKE to COMINIT.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: David Freeman [mailto:David.Freeman at jdsu.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:03 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: Yamini Shastry; Geoff Hibbert
Subject: Clearification on Optical Mode
George,
In section 5.12.3.2.1 it says that when we enter this state if D.C. mode is
enabled then we send a COMINIT, however, if Optical Mode is enabled we send
OOB Idle for an RCDT time and then send a COMWAKE.
My question is why are we sending a COMWAKE instead of a COMINIT?
David Freeman
JDSU


From apoorva.vats at synopsys.com  Wed Aug 21 23:53:45 2013
From: apoorva.vats at synopsys.com (Apoorva Vats)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:53:45 +0000
Subject: SMP REQUEST/SMP RESPONSE timer query
Message-ID: <mailman.381.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308220_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
As specified in  "SAS Protocol Layer - 3 (SPL-3) " version specification
(T10/BSR INCITS 492)( Revision 02 / 16 January 2013)
Page no. 443
6.20 SMP link layer
6.20.1 SMP frame transmission and reception
Inside an SMP connection, the SMP initiator phy transmits a single
SMP_REQUEST frame within 100 ?s and the SMP target phy responds with a single
SMP_RESPONSE frame (see 8.4) within 1 900 ?s.
And at page no. 547
						       Table 187 - MT_TP time
limits
Time limit
Value
Description
SMP Response time limit
1 900 ?s
Maximum time from receiving an SMP_REQUEST frame to transmitting an
SMP_RESPONSE frame
Here specification specifies 2 timers. 1 for Request frame and other for
Response frame.
1)     100 ?s timer runs at Initiator end and;
2)     1900 ?s timer runs at Target end.
And at page no.548
8.4.5.3.3 MT_TP2:Respond state
8.4.5.3.3.1 State description
This state waits for a Send SMP Response request, which includes the
following argument:
a) Response Bytes.
After receiving a Send SMP Response request, this state shall construct an
SMP_RESPONSE frame using the arguments from the Send SMP Response request and
send a Transmit Frame request to the port layer within the SMP Response time
limit specified in table 187 (see 8.4.5.3.1).
This specifies that within SMP Response time limit SMP RESPONSE frame should
be sent by the Target  but no action is specified in the specification, if
this does not happen within this time limit.
Similarly, Specification does not mention anything if  SMP initiator phy does
not transmit SMP_REQUEST frame within 100 ?s.
Firstly, I have few queries regarding 100 us timer :-
1)  What happens if Initiator doesn't transmit SMP REQUEST frame even after
100 ?s get passed after the connection is established?
2)  Why this timer is running in SMP Initiator instead of SMP Target ? I
believe the SMP Target should wait for 100 us after SMP connection is
established to receive a SMP Request Frame.
Secondly, following queries are with respect to 1900 us time limit:
3) What happens if Target doesn't transmit SMP RESPONSE frame even after 1900
?s get passed after receiving SMP REQUEST frame.
4) Why this timer is running in SMP Target instead of SMP Initiator ? I
believe the SMP Initiator should wait for 1900 us after SMP request is sent
to receive a SMP Response Frame.
Regards,
Apoorva


From pooja.gupta at synopsys.com  Thu Aug 22 00:08:59 2013
From: pooja.gupta at synopsys.com (Pooja Gupta)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:08:59 +0000
Subject: RCDT time during OOB
Message-ID: <mailman.382.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308221_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
In section 5.12.3.2.1 of "SAS Protocol Layer - 3 (SPL-3) " version
specification (T10/BSR INCITS 492)( Revision 02 / 16 January 2013),
It is mentioned that when optical mode is enabled, this state shall
repeatedly send Transmit OOB Idle messages to the SP transmitter for an RCDT
time.
=============================================================================
========
5.12.3.2 SP0:OOB_COMINIT state
5.12.3.2.1 State description
i) if this state was not entered because of a Disable Phy request and optical
mode is enabled, then:
1) repeatedly send Transmit OOB Idle messages to the SP transmitter for an
RCDT time; and
2) send a Transmit COMWAKE message to the SP transmitter.
=============================================================================
========
Here, I have a Query that RCDT time (rate change delay time) comes into
picture at the time of Speed Negotiation.
So, how it is mentioned to be used at the time of OOB?
Regards,
Pooja


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Aug 22 13:01:12 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:01:12 -0600
Subject: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field (fixed)
Message-ID: <mailman.383.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308222_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Ignore the first note.
OK, so Fred thinks this wording would work.
A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold set size. A threshold
exponent field set to zero indicates that the logical unit does not support
logical block provisioning thresholds.
If logical block provisioning thresholds are supported, then the threshold
exponent shall be a non-zero value selected such that:
.....
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:Frederick.Knight at netapp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Kevin D Butt; Roger Hathorn; Penokie, George; T10 Reflector
Subject: RE: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Yup, Kevin is correct.	We shouldn't really invert this because of the LOG
page use of this field.
		Fred
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin D Butt
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Roger Hathorn; George.Penokie at lsi.com; T10
Reflector
Subject: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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/
----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
From:	     Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
To:	   Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS,
Date:	     08/19/2013 06:20 PM
Subject:	Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
________________________________
Kevin,
I completely disagree with this statement:
"A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical
unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative requirement
that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then I shall also 
support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also states that I have
to support the logical block provisioning mode page.
I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that
the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.",
because that is already in the draft.	 I am not OK with the inverse.
This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected:
The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used
resource counts in the LBP log page.  One could support providing of the log
page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds.
The response was:
"No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page
references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the
i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent
referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined in
the VPD page. If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are non-zero
then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied it is
stated as such in the text."
The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains
resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't see
where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text.
Feel free to forward this response.
Roger G. Hathorn
STSM, Storage Systems Development
IBM Systems and Technology Group
Tel: 520-799-5950 (T/L: 321-5950)


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Aug 22 12:59:38 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:59:38 -0600
Subject: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Message-ID: <mailman.384.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308223_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

OK, so Fred thinks this wording would work.
A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold set. A threshold exponent
field set to zero indicates that the logical unit does not support logical
block provisioning thresholds.
If logical block provisioning thresholds are supported, then the threshold
exponent shall be a non-zero value selected such that:
.....
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:Frederick.Knight at netapp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Kevin D Butt; Roger Hathorn; Penokie, George; T10 Reflector
Subject: RE: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Yup, Kevin is correct.	We shouldn't really invert this because of the LOG
page use of this field.
		Fred
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin D Butt
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Roger Hathorn; George.Penokie at lsi.com; T10
Reflector
Subject: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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/
----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
From:	     Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
To:	   Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS,
Date:	     08/19/2013 06:20 PM
Subject:	Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
________________________________
Kevin,
I completely disagree with this statement:
"A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical
unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative requirement
that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then I shall also 
support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also states that I have
to support the logical block provisioning mode page.
I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that
the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.",
because that is already in the draft.	 I am not OK with the inverse.
This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected:
The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used
resource counts in the LBP log page.  One could support providing of the log
page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds.
The response was:
"No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page
references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the
i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent
referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined in
the VPD page. If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are non-zero
then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied it is
stated as such in the text."
The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains
resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't see
where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text.
Feel free to forward this response.
Roger G. Hathorn
STSM, Storage Systems Development
IBM Systems and Technology Group
Tel: 520-799-5950 (T/L: 321-5950)


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Thu Aug 22 13:37:40 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:37:40 -0500
Subject: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field (fixed)
Message-ID: <mailman.385.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308224_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The new proposed wording isn't quite right. i suggest the following:
(a) delete the sentence "A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold
set size." It doesn't directly indicate the threshold set size, it is only
a component of the equation that defines the threshold set size.
(b) Add the threshold set size definition as another equation after the
"... such that:"
threshold set size	   number of LBAs indicated by 2**(threshold
exponent)
This change also helps reinforce the fact that the threshold set size is
only defined if the threshold exponent is a non-zero value, because the
first sentence of the paragraph requires the threshold exponent to be
non-zero.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Penokie, George
<George.Penokie at lsi.com>wrote:
> Ignore the first note.
>
> ** **
>
> OK, so Fred thinks this wording would work.****
>
> ** **
>
> A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold set size. A threshold
> exponent field set to zero indicates that the logical unit does not support
> logical block provisioning thresholds.****
>
> If logical block provisioning thresholds are supported, then the threshold
> exponent shall be a non-zero value selected such that:****
>
> ?..****
>
> ** **
>
> Bye for now,****
>
> George Penokie****
>
> ** **
>
> LSI Corporation****
>
> 3033 41 St NW****
>
> Rochester , MN 55901****
>
> ** **
>
> 507-328-9017****
>
> george.penokie at lsi.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Knight, Frederick
[mailto:Frederick.Knight at netapp.com<Frederick.Knight at netapp.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:43 AM
> *To:* Kevin D Butt; Roger Hathorn; Penokie, George; T10 Reflector
> *Subject:* RE: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field****
>
> ** **
>
> Yup, Kevin is correct.  We shouldn?t really invert this because of the LOG
> page use of this field.****
>
> ** **
>
>		  Fred****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org <owner-t10 at t10.org>]
*On
> Behalf Of *Kevin D Butt
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:21 PM
> *To:* Roger Hathorn; George.Penokie at lsi.com; T10 Reflector
> *Subject:* Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field****
>
> ** **
>
> IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
>
> Kevin D. Butt
> SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
> Data Protection & Retention
> 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/
> ----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
>
> From:        Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
> To:	     Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS,
> Date:        08/19/2013 06:20 PM
> Subject:	  Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Kevin,
> I completely disagree with this statement:
> "A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical
> unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
> That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative
> requirement that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then
> I shall also	support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also
> states that I have to support the logical block provisioning mode page.
>
> I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that
> the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.",
> because that is already in the draft.    I am not OK with the inverse.
>
> This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected:
> The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used
> resource counts in the LBP log page.	One could support providing of the
> log page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds.
> The response was:
> "No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page
> references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the
> i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent
> referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined
> in the VPD page. *If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are
> non-zero then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied
> it is stated as such in the text."*
>
> The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains
> resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't
> see where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text.
>
> Feel free to forward this response.
>
> Roger G. Hathorn
> STSM, Storage Systems Development
> IBM Systems and Technology Group
> Tel: 520-799-5950 (T/L: 321-5950)****
>


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Aug 22 14:09:50 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:09:50 -0600
Subject: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field (fixed)
Message-ID: <mailman.386.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308225_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Given what Gerry has pointed out this is wording to address that concern.
The threshold exponent field indicates the threshold set size (see
4.7.3.8.1). A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that the logical
unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.
If logical block provisioning thresholds are supported, then the threshold
exponent shall be a non-zero value selected such that:
....
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
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 Gerry Houlder
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:38 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: Re: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field (fixed)
The new proposed wording isn't quite right. i suggest the following:
(a) delete the sentence "A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold
set size." It doesn't directly indicate the threshold set size, it is only a
component of the equation that defines the threshold set size.
(b) Add the threshold set size definition as another equation after the "...
such that:"
threshold set size	   number of LBAs indicated by 2**(threshold
exponent)
This change also helps reinforce the fact that the threshold set size is only
defined if the threshold exponent is a non-zero value, because the first
sentence of the paragraph requires the threshold exponent to be non-zero.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Penokie, George
<George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
Ignore the first note.
OK, so Fred thinks this wording would work.
A threshold exponent field indicates the threshold set size. A threshold
exponent field set to zero indicates that the logical unit does not support
logical block provisioning thresholds.
If logical block provisioning thresholds are supported, then the threshold
exponent shall be a non-zero value selected such that:
.....
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Knight, Frederick [mailto:Frederick.Knight at netapp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Kevin D Butt; Roger Hathorn; Penokie, George; T10 Reflector
Subject: RE: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
Yup, Kevin is correct.	We shouldn't really invert this because of the LOG
page use of this field.
		Fred
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin D Butt
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Roger Hathorn; George.Penokie at lsi.com; T10
Reflector
Subject: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
IBM does not accept this revision to SBC-3.  See below for the reasoning.
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI Architect, Tape Firmware, T10 Standards
Data Protection & Retention
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/
----- Forwarded by Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM on 08/20/2013 10:19 AM -----
From:	     Roger Hathorn/Tucson/IBM
To:	   Kevin D Butt/Tucson/IBM at IBMUS,
Date:	     08/19/2013 06:20 PM
Subject:	Re: Fw: Letter ballot comments on THRESHOLD EXPONENT field
________________________________
Kevin,
I completely disagree with this statement:
"A threshold exponent field set to a non-zero value indicates the logical
unit supports logical block provisioning thresholds (see 4.7.3.8)."
That is a change to the current definition and adds a normative requirement
that  if I support resource counts in the LBP log page, then I shall also 
support logical block provisioning thresholds, which also states that I have
to support the logical block provisioning mode page.
I am OK with saying "A threshold exponent field set to zero indicates that
the logical unit does not support logical block provisioning thresholds.",
because that is already in the draft.	 I am not OK with the inverse.
This is the main reason for my comment that was rejected:
The threshold exponent is also used for expressing available and used
resource counts in the LBP log page.  One could support providing of the log
page resource counts without supporting LBP thresholds.
The response was:
"No change - The one usage of threshold exponent in the LBP log page
references back to this VPD page and now has modified wording to make the
i.e, clearer (see SBC-3 revision 35f or later). The threshold exponent
referenced in the LBP log page is also the same threshold exponent defined in
the VPD page. If the contents of the THRESHOLD EXPONENT field are non-zero
then the device supports these thresholds. It is not just implied it is
stated as such in the text."
The content of the LPB log page does not contain thresholds, it contains
resource counts. They are useable without supporting thresholds.  I don't see
where it is stated anywhere in the letter ballot version of the text.
Feel free to forward this response.
Roger G. Hathorn
STSM, Storage Systems Development
IBM Systems and Technology Group
Tel: 520-799-5950 (T/L: 321-5950)


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Aug 23 09:19:22 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:19:22 +0000
Subject: Minutes of SMR Study Group July 18, 2013
Message-ID: <mailman.387.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Curtis Stevens <curtis.stevens at wdc.com>
*
Way to go Ric!
-------------------------------------------------
Curtis E. Stevens
Director, Standards & Features Technology
3355 Michelson Dr. #100
Office: 1-1041
Irvine, Ca. 92612
Phone: 949-672-7933
Cell: 949-307-5050
E-Mail: Curtis.Stevens at WDC.com
Remember, you may only be blamed for something if you are actually doing
something.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Wheeler [mailto:rwheeler at redhat.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:31 AM
To: James Borden
Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Gerry Houlder; Jorge Campello; Curtis Stevens; Dan
Colegrove; Dave B Anderson; Jim Hatfield; Jim Malina; Mike Fitzpatrick; Mike
H Miller; Patrick Hery; T10 Reflector; William Boyle; Zvonimir Bandic
Subject: Re: Minutes of SMR Study Group July 18, 2013
Just a quick note, I have arranged to have a session at LinuxCon Europe to
cover advanced storage technologies:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-europe/program/schedule
Note that this will include other topics (like persistent memory).
We have Monday from 11AM to the end of the day as a free form event - you
will need to register for LinuxCon to attend though.
If someone is planning on attending the Edinburgh event and wants to present,
just let me know.
Thanks!
Ric
*
* 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 Aug 24 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/08/18
Message-ID: <mailman.388.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
Agenda for T10 Meeting #116
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-200r1   Uploaded: 2013/08/20   14999 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-200r1.pdf
Results of Letter Ballot on forwarding SAS-2.1 AM1 to First Public
Review
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-204r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/22   2796 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-204r0.pdf
Results of Letter Ballot on forwarding SAS-2.1 AM1 to First Public
Review
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-204r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/22   3804 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-204r0.txt
SPL-3: Last set of fixes before LB
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-216r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/21   73262 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-216r0.pdf
T11 Liaison Report August 2013
(by: Steven Wilson)
T10/13-217r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/22   83781 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-217r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
Serial Attached SCSI - 3 (SAS-3)
(Editor: Alvin Cox)
 Rev: 05f      Uploaded: 2013/08/21   3331708 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sas3r05f.pdf
Serial Attached SCSI - 3 (SAS-3)
(Editor: Alvin Cox)
 Rev: 05f      Uploaded: 2013/08/21   50111018 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sas3r05f.zip
(Report generated on 2013/08/25 at 00:01:29)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From pooja.gupta at synopsys.com  Sun Aug 25 23:02:10 2013
From: pooja.gupta at synopsys.com (Pooja Gupta)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:02:10 +0000
Subject: FW: RCDT time during OOB
Message-ID: <mailman.389.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308260_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
Is there any suggestion on the Query mentioned below.
Regards,
Pooja
From: Pooja Gupta
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:39 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: RCDT time during OOB
Hi,
In section 5.12.3.2.1 of "SAS Protocol Layer - 3 (SPL-3) " version
specification (T10/BSR INCITS 492)( Revision 02 / 16 January 2013),
It is mentioned that when optical mode is enabled, this state shall
repeatedly send Transmit OOB Idle messages to the SP transmitter for an RCDT
time.
=============================================================================
========
5.12.3.2 SP0:OOB_COMINIT state
5.12.3.2.1 State description
i) if this state was not entered because of a Disable Phy request and optical
mode is enabled, then:
1) repeatedly send Transmit OOB Idle messages to the SP transmitter for an
RCDT time; and
2) send a Transmit COMWAKE message to the SP transmitter.
=============================================================================
========
Here, I have a Query that RCDT time (rate change delay time) comes into
picture at the time of Speed Negotiation.
So, how it is mentioned to be used at the time of OOB?
Regards,
Pooja


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Mon Aug 26 14:27:47 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:27:47 -0500
Subject: Agenda for SMR study group, Sept. 19, 3:30 pm
Message-ID: <mailman.390.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308261_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The SMR study group will have a meeting on Sept. 19, 3:30 pm, after the T10
Plenary meeting, in Westborough, MA. This will be limited to in-person
attendees, no webex or telecon will be provided.
The host companies (HGST, Seagate, Toshiba, and Western Digital) are
preparing a slide presentation that is intended to be shown at two upcoming
Linux Conferences:
- Linux Plumbers Conference Sept. 18-20, New Orleans
- LinuxCon Europe Oct. 21-23, Edinburough Scotland
This presentation will be shown to T10 at the Sept. 19 meeting. The
presentation will be posted to T10 web site no later than Sept. 18.
After the presentation, there will be discussion of next steps forward.
An SMR study group meeting is planned for the November T10 meeting. This
meeting will report on reactions received from the Linux Conference
attendees.


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Aug 28 01:00:01 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 List Manager)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:00:01 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector Monthly Reminder
Message-ID: <mailman.391.1441607389.22530.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 alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Aug 28 06:48:28 2013
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:48:28 -0500
Subject: SAS PHY call 8/29/2013 cancelled
Message-ID: <mailman.392.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1308281_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have no new material to be presented.
SAS-3 letter ballot comments have all been addressed and I will be posting
comment resolution files today and tomorrow.
Yesterday I was notified by Graeme regarding SAS3_EYEOPENING that there
are  "several flaws within the script which I am working on fixing - so
expect a new version within a few weeks" Since this is included in the
SAS3.zip file, it looks like we won't be able to forward for public review
at the September meeting even though this does not affect the main body
text.
SAS3r05f was posted on 8/21. This version includes all comment resolutions
and editorial/format updates. This version should be ready to forward to
INCITS for public review by simply removing the change bars and the
revision history.
The September PHY meeting should be focused on SAS-4 phy concerns and
status of SAS3_EYEOPENING. Remember that the phy group will meet jointly
with the protocol group on Wednesday morning for proposals that affect both
groups. Please post proposals tagging both agendas or single agendas as
appropriate.
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Aug 28 15:25:59 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:25:59 -0600
Subject: FW: Re: T10 Working Draft Assignment: sbc3r35g
Message-ID: <mailman.393.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
Revision 35g of SBC-3 has been posted. It contains all the letter ballots
comments and all the proposals that cover letter ballots except for:
-The endless email discussion that has been going all day (that represents 3
or 4 comments)
- Proposal number 13-213r0 - SBC-3 Define read, verify, and write operations 
  [Elliott]
Also 13-089r6 has been posted that is the letter ballot resolution document.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
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: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: John Lohmeyer
Subject: Re: Re: T10 Working Draft Assignment: sbc3r35g
2013/08/28 15:53:46 
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=sbc3r35g.pdf
Source File(s) that will be archived are:
   sbc3r35g.zip will be archived as sbc3r35g.zip
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org> should you need further
assistance.
George.Penokie at lsi.com wrote:
> Date: Wed Aug 28 15:52:40 2013
> From: George.Penokie at lsi.com
> To: T10 Document Administrator via web upload <docs at t10.org>
> Subject: Re: T10 Working Draft Assignment: sbc3r35g
> 
> T10 working draft upload details:
> 
>	    Project: 1799-D
>     Working Draft: sbc3r35g
>	Upload Code: AC_02819qYz0mcx5io
>	 Draft_Date: 2013/08/28
>      Draft_Author: George Penokie
>	Draft_Title: SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3) ##
>  Current_Revision: Yes
>	  Post_File: pdf
> 
> ## COPYRIGHT POLICY
> ## ----------------
> ##
> ## All Working Drafts should contain the following copyright ## 
> statement on the cover page:
> ##
> ##   Permission is granted to members of INCITS, its technical
> ##   committees and their associated task groups to reproduce
> ##   this document for the purposes of INCITS standardization
> ##   activities without further permission, provided this notice 
> ##   is included. All other rights are reserved. Any duplication 
> ##   of this document for commercial or for-profit use is 
> ##   strictly prohibited.
> ##
> Attachment Converted: "D:\T10\ATTACH\sbc3r35g.pdf"
> 
> Attachment Converted: "D:\T10\ATTACH\sbc3r35g.zip"
> 
*
* 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 Aug 31 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/08/25
Message-ID: <mailman.394.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
Features for ADC-4
(by: Paul Suhler)
T10/12-301r4   Uploaded: 2013/08/29   198208 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-301r4.pdf
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r6   Uploaded: 2013/08/28   7669479 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r6.fdf
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r6   Uploaded: 2013/08/28   7640119 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r6.pdf
SBC-3 Protection information after a sanitize operation
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-191r1   Uploaded: 2013/08/28   130878 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-191r1.pdf
ADC-4 Multi-Initiator Conflict Warning
(by: Paul Suhler)
T10/13-205r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/29   347800 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-205r0.pdf
SPL-3: Missing Obsolete notation and other issues from 09-374
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-206r1   Uploaded: 2013/08/27   70139 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-206r1.pdf
SPC-x Add new command timeout sense codes
(by: Gerald Houlder)
T10/13-218r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/26   25829 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-218r0.pdf
Summary of T10 Activities to ISO/IEC SC 25 / WG 4
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-219r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/27   95415 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-219r0.pdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06k
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-220r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/30   1138950 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-220r0.fdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06k
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-220r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/30   85507 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-220r0.pdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06k
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-220r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/30   239616 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-220r0.xls
SAS3r05e Comment Resolution
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-221r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/29   50126 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-221r0.fdf
SAS3r05e Comment Resolution
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-221r0   Uploaded: 2013/08/29   3388865 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-221r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
PCIe(r) architecture Queuing Interface (PQI)
(Editor: Ie-Wei Njoo)
 Rev: 06l      Uploaded: 2013/08/30   2324806 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=pqi-r06l.pdf
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 35g      Uploaded: 2013/08/28   3090051 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r35g.pdf
SCSI Enclosure Services - 3 (SES-3)
(Editor: Fred Knight)
 Rev: 06       Uploaded: 2013/08/30   499380 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=ses3r06.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/09/01 at 00:01:30)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org