From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep  7 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/09/01
Message-ID: <mailman.395.1441607389.22530.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 Scattered writes, optionally atomic
(by: Rob Elliott, Ashish Batwara, Walt Hubis)
T10/12-086r5   Uploaded: 2013/09/05   218936 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-086r5.pdf
SBC-4 Gathered reads, optionally atomic
(by: Rob Elliott, Ashish Batwara, Walt Hubis)
T10/12-087r5   Uploaded: 2013/09/05   179478 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-087r5.pdf
SBC-4 SPC-5 Atomic writes and reads
(by: Rob Elliott, Ashish Batwara, Walt Hubis)
T10/13-064r4   Uploaded: 2013/09/05   342384 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-064r4.pdf
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r7   Uploaded: 2013/09/04   7717296 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r7.fdf
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r7   Uploaded: 2013/09/04   7665982 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r7.pdf
SOP Letter Ballot Comments
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/13-108r2   Uploaded: 2013/09/02   10159026 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-108r2.pdf
SPC-4 LB Timestamps model rewrite
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/13-133r3   Uploaded: 2013/09/04   128891 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-133r3.pdf
SPC-4 LB Only needed Sense Data Descriptors
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/13-187r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/04   84388 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-187r1.pdf
SPL-3: Missing Obsolete notation and other issues from 09-374
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-206r2   Uploaded: 2013/09/03   70198 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-206r2.pdf
SBC-3 Define read, verify, and write operations
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-213r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/04   282756 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-213r1.pdf
SPL-3: Persistent Connection Establishment Fix
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-222r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/03   70709 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-222r0.pdf
SAS-3 letter ballot comment regarding SAS3_EYEOPENING issues
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-223r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/05   40093 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-223r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
Serial Attached SCSI - 3 (SAS-3)
(Editor: Alvin Cox)
 Rev: 05g      Uploaded: 2013/09/05   3235197 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sas3r05g.pdf
Serial Attached SCSI - 3 (SAS-3)
(Editor: Alvin Cox)
 Rev: 05g      Uploaded: 2013/09/05   50111018 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sas3r05g.zip
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 35h      Uploaded: 2013/09/04   3108689 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r35h.pdf
SCSI over PCIe(r) architecture (SOP)
(Editor: Curtis Stevens)
 Rev: 04d      Uploaded: 2013/09/02   2053004 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sop-r04d.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/09/08 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 mickey.felton at emc.com  Mon Sep  9 10:25:38 2013
From: mickey.felton at emc.com (Felton, Mickey)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:25:38 +0000
Subject: Some items to discuss for your stay in Boston area
Message-ID: <mailman.396.1441607389.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309090_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Dear September T10 Guests:
Welcome to Boston!  A few items for your arrival and stay at the hotel:
1.	 The internet has 2 options for Speed, your stay includes PREMIUM
internet, the highest speed offered. Please select that option (which has an
added cost) and it would be removed from your bill at the end of your stay.
2.	 We will do our best to keep the itemizations OFF the bill and OFF
the credit card bill, but PLEASE examine both before you leave to make sure
the itemizations are removed to make your accounting easier.
3.	 A hot item in the morning breakfast is being added this year, and
lunch will be served at 12:30 every day with the menu as follows:
a.	 Tex mex buffet
b.	Pizza buffet
c.	 Fish & Chowder & chicken Buffet
d.	Italian Buffet
4.	 Outside the hotel, food choices have changed a lot in the last 3
years, I've update the list below with the favorites, as always Yelp tells
you the basics, but these below are the highly recommended restaurants by
many people.
WEST OF HOTEL:
Best Seafood:
Sole Proprietor,  118 Highland Street, about 25 minute drive but VERY worth
it!, RT 9 west for 12miles(take fork right), into Worcester, on right side.
Best Steak houses
Willys steakhouse, 2 grafton street, RT9 west towards Worcester about 6
miles, take RT 140 north about 3 miles, at the lights its on the left
side.(20 min drive)
111 Steakhouse,  111 Shrewsbury street, Rt 9 west to Worcester, take left at
fork to shrewsury street, down another 1 mile on left.(25 minute drive)
Best OLD SCHOOL Hot dog:
Coney island hot dog
158 Southbridge St
Worcester, MA 01608
Phone number (508) 753-4362
Best Italian:
Arturo's Ristorante, 50 East Main Street, Westborough, MA (Take Rt 9 west, to
Rt 30 west, go 1 mile, on the right in mini-mall)
Best IRISH:
O-connor's
1160 W Boylston St, Worcester, MA 01606
Phone number (508) 853-0789
Best Burger (Cow or BISON!):
Teds Montana Grill, 400 Union Street, Westborough, MA (Take Rt 9 west, to Rt
30 west, go 1 mile, on the left deep in the plaza)
Best ridiculous oversize SUB:
Rigatta Deli, 3 Colonial Drive, (Take Rt 9 west, to Rt 30 west, go 1 mile, on
the right deep in the plaza) Dunkin donuts is out front.
EAST OF HOTEL
There is only one area to go, which is Framingham/Natick Area, which is also
the shopping district about 20 minutes EAST on RT 9.
Restaurants in this area that are better than the others:
On right side in order:
British Beer, awesome beef sandwiches, and apps..
Legal Seafoods
Minado on right side, across from BIGGER NATICK mall, all you can SUSHI
On Left side in order
Ken's steakhouse (the original!)
John Harvards beer works (in strip mall, in way back)
Standard chain eats:
Olive Garden, Chinese, Fridays, Uno's, Tai, Subs, etc..


From pooja.gupta at synopsys.com  Tue Sep 10 02:19:39 2013
From: pooja.gupta at synopsys.com (Pooja Gupta)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:19:39 +0000
Subject: Doubt in SAS speed negotiation sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.397.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309100_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309100_image001.png">image001.png</a>

Hi,
Section 5.10.4.2.4 "SAS speed negotiation sequence" of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16
January 2013)
describes SAS Speed Negotiation sequence as:
[cid:image001.png at 01CEAE29.B275A670]
Here, I am not able to understand the difference between the two yellow
Diamond decision boxes.
I feel that, both result in the same condition of SNW-1 being valid and SNW-2
being invalid.
Can you please help me	understand this.
Regards,
Pooja


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Tue Sep 10 13:34:54 2013
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:34:54 -0500
Subject: SAS PHY teleconference: Thursday, September 12, 2013, 10:00 am CDT
Message-ID: <mailman.398.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309101_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
Status of SAS3_EYEOPENING sip file.
Editorial changes to the standard.
Additional topics.
Topic: SAS-3
Date: Thursday, September 12, 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 pooja.gupta at synopsys.com  Tue Sep 10 22:24:05 2013
From: pooja.gupta at synopsys.com (Pooja Gupta)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:24:05 +0000
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.399.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309102_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
Figure 79 - SAS speed negotiation sequence - phy reset problem in
Train_Rx-SNW of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16 January 2013)
Shows SAS speed negotiation sequence for a case where there is a problem in
Train_Rx-SNW .
Here, I see two issues in the figure as mentioned below:
1.	 As per new spec, in SNW-3 we can have Train_Rx-SNW and Train_Tx-SNW.
There is nothing like Train-SNW and
Figure title also mentions it as : Train_Rx-SNW. So, I think this needs a
correction
2.	 In SNW-3 after Phy capabilities are exchanged, after RCDT, MTT is
written.
There is no such timer as MTT defined in spec. For Train_Rx-SNW, it should be
MRTT.
Similar corrections are required in Figure 80 on Page 192 for: Train-SNW and
MTT.
In addition, in Figure 80, colors mentioned at the bottom and used in the
figure are not correct for TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern.
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Pooja


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Wed Sep 11 12:44:44 2013
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:44:44 -0500
Subject: Agenda for SMR study group meeting Sept. 19
Message-ID: <mailman.400.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309110_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The agenda for the Sept. 19 SMR study group meeting (held after the Plenary
meeting) will be as follows:
1) Review SMR slides that will be presented at Sept. 18-20 and Oct. 31-23
Linux conferences. A PDF of this presentation will be posted no later than
Sept. 18.
2) Discuss next steps towards standardizing the new functions needed
3) Plans for November SMR study group meeting
      a) Discuss feedback received from the Linux conference presentations


From Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Thu Sep 12 05:07:06 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:07:06 +0000
Subject: New SPC-4 Letter Ballot documents uploaded
Message-ID: <mailman.401.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309120_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The latest SPC-4 Letter Ballot comment database is available in printable
format as:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r7.pdf
Pages 1 and 2 of this file explain how to use the other files mentioned in
this message. Those unfamiliar with SPC-4 Letter Ballot files should begin by
reading these pages, since only superficial information is provided here.
For reasons which defy explanation, the Letter Ballot r7 Fickle Finger of
Fate fell on MAM. All comments were processed for all MAM-related subclauses
(model, read/write attribute, parameter data formats). At the top of page 4
in 12-311r7 there is a lengthy list of MAM-related comments to be resolved by
the Westborough CAP.
To see what the comments processing hath wrought, download:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r36i.pdf
The latest FDF version of the SPC-4 Letter Ballot comments database is:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r7.fdf
Use of the FDF file will require a copy of SPC-4 r36, which can be obtained
from:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r36.pdf
See you in Massachusetts,
.Ralph


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Thu Sep 12 15:17:56 2013
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:17:56 -0700
Subject: Additional sense code for humidity
Message-ID: <mailman.402.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309121_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Ralph and all,
 We have an additional sense code for WARNING - SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE 
EXCEEDED but nothing for humidity.  Could we add a WARNING - HUMIDITY OUT 
OF BOUNDS additional sense code?
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 mickey.felton at emc.com  Fri Sep 13 06:40:54 2013
From: mickey.felton at emc.com (Felton, Mickey)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:40:54 +0000
Subject: Some items to discuss for your stay in Boston area
Message-ID: <mailman.403.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309130_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Sorry one more change to the schedule:
All CHANDLER meetings are now moved to AUTUMN conference rooms.
			    (2013/09/12 Version)
Monday 9/16	   9  10  11  12   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
		   +=======================================+
  Chandler	   | CAP WG<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/cap-agnd.htm&gt;	     
		      | 	 (45)
     AUTUMN	   +=======================================+
Tuesday 9/17	   9  10  11  12   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
		   +===================================+
  Chandler	   | SAS Physical WG<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/phy-agnd.htm&gt;
		  |		 (45)
     AUTUMN	   +===================================+=+
  Edgewood	   | CAP WG<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/cap-agnd.htm&gt;	     
		    |		 (45)
		   +===========+===+=====================+
  Nugget	   | STA Ad Hoc|lun| STA Marcom*/BOD*  |	      (20)
		   +-----------+---+-------------------+ +--------+
  Autumn/Baldwin	       TE/Madison Reception -->  | Dinner |  (All)
							 +--------+
Wednesday 9/18	   9  10  11  12   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
		   +=======================+===========+
  Chandler	   |Joint Phy/SAS
Protocol<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/sas-agnd.htm&gt; |SOP_PQI
WG<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/sop-agnd.htm&gt; |		   (50)
      AUTUMN	   +=======================+===========+
  Edgewood	   | SSC WG<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/ssc-agnd.htm&gt;	     
		  |		 (10)
		   +===============+=======+=========+=+
  Nugget	   | STA Plen*	   |	   | SFF 
<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/sff-agnd.htm&gt;    |		      (25)
		   +---------------+	   +---------+
Thursday 9/19	   9  10  11  12   1   2   3	4   5	6   7	8
		   +===========+=====+========+========+
  Chandler	   | SOP_PQI
WG<|lunch|T10">http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/sop-agnd.htm>|lunch|T10
Plen<http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/t10-agnd.htm&gt;| SMR SG | 	     (55)
     AUTUMN	   +===========+=====+========+========+
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Felton,
Mickey
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:26 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: Some items to discuss for your stay in Boston area
Dear September T10 Guests:
Welcome to Boston!  A few items for your arrival and stay at the hotel:
1.	 The internet has 2 options for Speed, your stay includes PREMIUM
internet, the highest speed offered. Please select that option (which has an
added cost) and it would be removed from your bill at the end of your stay.
2.	 We will do our best to keep the itemizations OFF the bill and OFF
the credit card bill, but PLEASE examine both before you leave to make sure
the itemizations are removed to make your accounting easier.
3.	 A hot item in the morning breakfast is being added this year, and
lunch will be served at 12:30 every day with the menu as follows:
a.	 Tex mex buffet
b.	Pizza buffet
c.	 Fish & Chowder & chicken Buffet
d.	Italian Buffet
4.	 Outside the hotel, food choices have changed a lot in the last 3
years, I've update the list below with the favorites, as always Yelp tells
you the basics, but these below are the highly recommended restaurants by
many people.
WEST OF HOTEL:
Best Seafood:
Sole Proprietor,  118 Highland Street, about 25 minute drive but VERY worth
it!, RT 9 west for 12miles(take fork right), into Worcester, on right side.
Best Steak houses
Willys steakhouse, 2 grafton street, RT9 west towards Worcester about 6
miles, take RT 140 north about 3 miles, at the lights its on the left
side.(20 min drive)
111 Steakhouse,  111 Shrewsbury street, Rt 9 west to Worcester, take left at
fork to shrewsury street, down another 1 mile on left.(25 minute drive)
Best OLD SCHOOL Hot dog:
Coney island hot dog
158 Southbridge St
Worcester, MA 01608
Phone number (508) 753-4362
Best Italian:
Arturo's Ristorante, 50 East Main Street, Westborough, MA (Take Rt 9 west, to
Rt 30 west, go 1 mile, on the right in mini-mall)
Best IRISH:
O-connor's
1160 W Boylston St, Worcester, MA 01606
Phone number (508) 853-0789
Best Burger (Cow or BISON!):
Teds Montana Grill, 400 Union Street, Westborough, MA (Take Rt 9 west, to Rt
30 west, go 1 mile, on the left deep in the plaza)
Best ridiculous oversize SUB:
Rigatta Deli, 3 Colonial Drive, (Take Rt 9 west, to Rt 30 west, go 1 mile, on
the right deep in the plaza) Dunkin donuts is out front.
EAST OF HOTEL
There is only one area to go, which is Framingham/Natick Area, which is also
the shopping district about 20 minutes EAST on RT 9.
Restaurants in this area that are better than the others:
On right side in order:
British Beer, awesome beef sandwiches, and apps..
Legal Seafoods
Minado on right side, across from BIGGER NATICK mall, all you can SUSHI
On Left side in order
Ken's steakhouse (the original!)
John Harvards beer works (in strip mall, in way back)
Standard chain eats:
Olive Garden, Chinese, Fridays, Uno's, Tai, Subs, etc..


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Fri Sep 13 15:59:57 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:59:57 +0000
Subject: SOP Rev 4e
Message-ID: <mailman.404.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309131_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have uploaded SOP rev 4e.  This document completes the incorporation of
letter ballot comments and all associated proposals.  Please look this over
for review on Wednesday next week.
-------------------------------------------------
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.


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep 14 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/09/08
Message-ID: <mailman.405.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SPC-4 Letter Ballot Comment Resolutions
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/12-311r7   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   8572039 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r7.fdf
SPC-4 Letter Ballot Comment Resolutions
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/12-311r7   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   2438499 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r7.pdf
SAS3-PHY: SAS3_EYEOPENING script release
(by: Graeme Boyd, Rod Zavari)
T10/13-018r4   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   290808 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-018r4.pdf
SAS3-PHY: SAS3_EYEOPENING script release
(by: Graeme Boyd, Rod Zavari)
T10/13-018r4   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   54086102 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-018r4.zip
SOP Letter Ballot Comments
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/13-108r3   Uploaded: 2013/09/13   5203744 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-108r3.fdf
SOP Letter Ballot Comments
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/13-108r3   Uploaded: 2013/09/13   10172598 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-108r3.pdf
SPL-3 Credit Advance
(by: Greg Tabor, Tim Symons)
T10/13-138r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   340247 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-138r0.pdf
SAS-3 Rx Stressed Eye Simulation
(by: Harvey Newman)
T10/13-224r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   1174242 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-224r0.pdf
SPL-4: 128b130b Coding
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-225r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/11   135104 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-225r0.pdf
SMR Presentation
(by: Curtis Stevens, Gerry Houlder, Jorge Campello)
T10/13-229r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   342610 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-229r0.pdf
SPL-3 RRDY, EXTENDED CONNECTION
(by: Tim Symons)
T10/13-230r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/12   183859 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-230r0.pdf
SAS-4 / SPL-4 Block encoding discussion topics
(by: Tim Symons)
T10/13-232r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/13   608765 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-232r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI over PCIe(r) architecture (SOP)
(Editor: Curtis Stevens)
 Rev: 04e      Uploaded: 2013/09/13   2112881 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sop-r04e.pdf
SCSI Primary Commands - 4 (SPC-4)
(Editor: Ralph Weber)
 Rev: 36i      Uploaded: 2013/09/12   4418892 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r36i.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/09/15 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


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Tue Sep 17 08:05:35 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:05:35 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.406.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309170_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309170_nameless-3496-3.txt">nameless-3496-3.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 23-Sep-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 743 216 404
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=743216404
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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 George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Sep 17 08:06:37 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:06:37 -0600
Subject: SBC-3 letter ballot comments relating to 13-213
Message-ID: <mailman.407.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309171_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309171_nameless-3496-6.txt">nameless-3496-6.txt</a>

When: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:00 PM-5:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US
& Canada).
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
George Penokie invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 800 853 607
Meeting Password: scsiata
Attendee ID: You must join WebEx from a PC for your Attendee ID Number. If
you are unable to join WebEx, simply press the # (hash) key to bypass the
Attendee ID Number.
For additional Toll and Toll Free numbers click here:
http://mpnumbers.lsi.com
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://lsi-corp.webex.com/lsi-corp/j.php?J=800853607&PW=NZjVkMTM2MzEz
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: scsiata
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Audio conference information
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Please call one of the following numbers:
 CA, San Jose Local and USA Mobile Phone: 408-433-6100
 Use From Any LSI Office: 18-8000
 CO, Colorado Springs (Local): 719-533-7100
 CO, Fort Collins (Local): 970-206-6100
 CO, Longmont (Local): 720-864-4100
 GA, Norcross (Local): 678-728-9700
 KS, Wichita (Local): 316-201-2060
 MN, Mendota Heights (Local): 952-921-8400
 MN, Rochester (Local): 507-328-8990
 OR, Beaverton (Local): 503-495-2380
 PA, Allentown (Local): 610-712-6100
 TX, Austin (Local): 512-821-6700
 TX, Houston (Local): 281-379-7810
 West Coast (Toll Free): 1-866-822-0330
 East Coast (Toll Free): 1-877-574-5644
 China (Toll Free): 800-820-5902
 Europe (Toll Free): 00-800-5742-6777
 India (Toll Free): 000-800-1091188
 Japan (Local): 81-3-5463-7122
 Singapore (Local): 65-6818-5678
 Taiwan (Local): 886-2-8722-3333
2. Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
 Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 800 853 607
For additional Toll and Toll Free numbers click here:
http://mpnumbers.lsi.com
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  Tue Sep 17 08:11:18 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:11:18 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.408.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309172_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309172_nameless-2440-3.txt">nameless-2440-3.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 7-Oct-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 745 009 558
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=745009558
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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  Tue Sep 17 08:11:58 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:11:58 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.409.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309173_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309173_nameless-2440-6.txt">nameless-2440-6.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 23-Sep-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 743 216 404
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=743216404
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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  Tue Sep 17 08:15:08 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:15:08 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.410.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309174_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309174_nameless-1544-3.txt">nameless-1544-3.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 23-Sep-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 743 216 404
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=743216404
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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  Tue Sep 17 08:19:39 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:19:39 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.411.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309175_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309175_nameless-1544-6.txt">nameless-1544-6.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 28-Oct-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 741 530 734
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=741530734
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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  Tue Sep 17 08:16:07 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:16:07 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.412.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309176_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309176_nameless-1544-9.txt">nameless-1544-9.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 14-Oct-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 745 052 366
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=745052366
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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  Tue Sep 17 08:14:16 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:14:16 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.413.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309177_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309177_nameless-1544-12.txt">nameless-1544-12.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 14-Oct-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Sep 17 10:59:24 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:59:24 -0600
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.414.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309178_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Pooja,
You need to look at the current version of SPL-3 which is revision 4 as some
of your comments have already been fixed. However, MTT is still not correct
in revision 4. I will correct that in the next revision.
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 Pooja Gupta
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:24 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Hi,
Figure 79 - SAS speed negotiation sequence - phy reset problem in
Train_Rx-SNW of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16 January 2013)
Shows SAS speed negotiation sequence for a case where there is a problem in
Train_Rx-SNW .
Here, I see two issues in the figure as mentioned below:
1.	 As per new spec, in SNW-3 we can have Train_Rx-SNW and Train_Tx-SNW.
There is nothing like Train-SNW and
Figure title also mentions it as : Train_Rx-SNW. So, I think this needs a
correction
2.	 In SNW-3 after Phy capabilities are exchanged, after RCDT, MTT is
written.
There is no such timer as MTT defined in spec. For Train_Rx-SNW, it should be
MRTT.
Similar corrections are required in Figure 80 on Page 192 for: Train-SNW and
MTT.
In addition, in Figure 80, colors mentioned at the bottom and used in the
figure are not correct for TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern.
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Pooja


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Sep 17 11:41:58 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:41:58 -0600
Subject: Doubt in SAS speed negotiation sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.415.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309179_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309179_image001.png">image001.png</a>

Pooja,
The flow chart is correct. After the device goes through SNW-1 and SNW-2
there are three possible outcomes: go to Final-SNW, go to SNW-3, or end the
speed negotiation .
1-	If the SNW-1 negotiation was valid and the SNW-2 negotiation failed.
That means the agreed to speed is 1.5 Gbps and the Final-SNW occurs.
2-	Any other combination requires another decision to decide what should
happen next.
3-	This decision is not based on if a negotiation failed or was
successful it is based on whether any negotiation occurred or did not occur.
a.	 if there was no SNW-1 negotiation and there was a  SNW-2 negotiation
then the phy ends the speed negotiation sequence without progressing to
SNW-3, transmits negotiation idle, and ignores the SNW information received
during SNW-3.
b.	If there was a SNW-1 negotiation and there was a  SNW-2 negotiation
then the phy moves to SNW-3
c.	 If there was a SNW-1 negotiation and there was a  no SNW-2
negotiation then the phy moves to SNW-3
d.	there was no SNW-1 negotiation and there was a	no SNW-2 negotiation
then the phy moves to SNW-3
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 Pooja Gupta
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:20 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Doubt in SAS speed negotiation sequence
Hi,
Section 5.10.4.2.4 "SAS speed negotiation sequence" of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16
January 2013)
describes SAS Speed Negotiation sequence as:
[cid:image001.png at 01CEB3A8.CEC5A4E0]
Here, I am not able to understand the difference between the two yellow
Diamond decision boxes.
I feel that, both result in the same condition of SNW-1 being valid and SNW-2
being invalid.
Can you please help me	understand this.
Regards,
Pooja


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Tue Sep 17 12:19:15 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:19:15 +0000
Subject: SOPQI WG & Atomic Write
Message-ID: <mailman.416.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r130917a_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r130917a_nameless-1780-3.txt">nameless-1780-3.txt</a>

17-Sep	Atomic Write portion starts at 2:30 Pacific Time
17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 14-Oct-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
12:30-2:30 Meeting to focus on SOP
2:30-3:30 Meeting to focus on Atomic Write
Curtis Stevens invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 745 052 366
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=745052366
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): 1-888-757-2790  (US/Canada)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-359-9722  (US/Canada)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6831898120&num=1888-757
-2790&num2=1719-359-9722
Attendee access code: 683 189 8120
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 pooja.gupta at synopsys.com  Tue Sep 17 23:12:10 2013
From: pooja.gupta at synopsys.com (Pooja Gupta)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:12:10 +0000
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.417.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309180_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Thanks George for the reply.
You are correct that Train-SNW has been replaced by Train_Rx-SNW in revision
4 of SPL-3.
But two issues still remain:
1.	  MTT to be replaced by MRTT which you have already acknowledged.
2.	 Colors used in Figure 80 for First Train_Rx-SNW and Second
Train_Rx-SNW are those of ALIGN(0) and ALIGN (1)
Instead of TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern
Regards,
Pooja
From: Penokie, George [mailto:George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:29 PM
To: Pooja Gupta; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Pooja,
You need to look at the current version of SPL-3 which is revision 4 as some
of your comments have already been fixed. However, MTT is still not correct
in revision 4. I will correct that in the next revision.
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> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Pooja Gupta
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:24 AM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Hi,
Figure 79 - SAS speed negotiation sequence - phy reset problem in
Train_Rx-SNW of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16 January 2013)
Shows SAS speed negotiation sequence for a case where there is a problem in
Train_Rx-SNW .
Here, I see two issues in the figure as mentioned below:
1.	 As per new spec, in SNW-3 we can have Train_Rx-SNW and Train_Tx-SNW.
There is nothing like Train-SNW and
Figure title also mentions it as : Train_Rx-SNW. So, I think this needs a
correction
2.	 In SNW-3 after Phy capabilities are exchanged, after RCDT, MTT is
written.
There is no such timer as MTT defined in spec. For Train_Rx-SNW, it should be
MRTT.
Similar corrections are required in Figure 80 on Page 192 for: Train-SNW and
MTT.
In addition, in Figure 80, colors mentioned at the bottom and used in the
figure are not correct for TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern.
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Pooja


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Sep 18 04:55:48 2013
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:55:48 -0500
Subject: SAS PHY teleconference, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 10:00 am CDT
Message-ID: <mailman.418.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309181_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Next call October 10, 2013, 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time
Agenda:
1. Review of pulse response value changes (see
13-240r0<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-240r0.pdf&gt;
)
2. Other items
Topic: SAS-3
Date: Thursday, October 10, 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:
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 George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Sep 18 05:39:24 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:39:24 -0600
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Message-ID: <mailman.419.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309182_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Pooja,
The colors will also be fixed in the next revision.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Pooja Gupta [mailto:pooja.gupta at synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 1:12 AM
To: Penokie, George; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Thanks George for the reply.
You are correct that Train-SNW has been replaced by Train_Rx-SNW in revision
4 of SPL-3.
But two issues still remain:
1.	  MTT to be replaced by MRTT which you have already acknowledged.
2.	 Colors used in Figure 80 for First Train_Rx-SNW and Second
Train_Rx-SNW are those of ALIGN(0) and ALIGN (1)
Instead of TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern
Regards,
Pooja
From: Penokie, George [mailto:George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:29 PM
To: Pooja Gupta; t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: RE: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Pooja,
You need to look at the current version of SPL-3 which is revision 4 as some
of your comments have already been fixed. However, MTT is still not correct
in revision 4. I will correct that in the next revision.
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> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Pooja Gupta
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:24 AM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: Issues in Figures on SAS Speed Negotiation Sequence
Hi,
Figure 79 - SAS speed negotiation sequence - phy reset problem in
Train_Rx-SNW of SPL-3 (Revision 02, 16 January 2013)
Shows SAS speed negotiation sequence for a case where there is a problem in
Train_Rx-SNW .
Here, I see two issues in the figure as mentioned below:
1.	 As per new spec, in SNW-3 we can have Train_Rx-SNW and Train_Tx-SNW.
There is nothing like Train-SNW and
Figure title also mentions it as : Train_Rx-SNW. So, I think this needs a
correction
2.	 In SNW-3 after Phy capabilities are exchanged, after RCDT, MTT is
written.
There is no such timer as MTT defined in spec. For Train_Rx-SNW, it should be
MRTT.
Similar corrections are required in Figure 80 on Page 192 for: Train-SNW and
MTT.
In addition, in Figure 80, colors mentioned at the bottom and used in the
figure are not correct for TRAIN pattern and TRAIN_DONE pattern.
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Pooja


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Sep 18 09:35:12 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:12 -0600
Subject: Review of 13-138 SPL-3 Credit Advance
Message-ID: <mailman.420.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309183_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309183_nameless-4092-3.txt">nameless-4092-3.txt</a>

When: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:00 PM-5:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US
& Canada).
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
George Penokie invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 806 607 744
Meeting Password: scsiata
Attendee ID: You must join WebEx from a PC for your Attendee ID Number. If
you are unable to join WebEx, simply press the # (hash) key to bypass the
Attendee ID Number.
For additional Toll and Toll Free numbers click here:
http://mpnumbers.lsi.com
-------------------------------------------------------
To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://lsi-corp.webex.com/lsi-corp/j.php?J=806607744&PW=NZmNjMjNhMDdk
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: scsiata
4. Click "Join".
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
-------------------------------------------------------
Audio conference information
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Please call one of the following numbers:
 CA, San Jose Local and USA Mobile Phone: 408-433-6100
 Use From Any LSI Office: 18-8000
 CO, Colorado Springs (Local): 719-533-7100
 CO, Fort Collins (Local): 970-206-6100
 CO, Longmont (Local): 720-864-4100
 GA, Norcross (Local): 678-728-9700
 KS, Wichita (Local): 316-201-2060
 MN, Mendota Heights (Local): 952-921-8400
 MN, Rochester (Local): 507-328-8990
 OR, Beaverton (Local): 503-495-2380
 PA, Allentown (Local): 610-712-6100
 TX, Austin (Local): 512-821-6700
 TX, Houston (Local): 281-379-7810
 West Coast (Toll Free): 1-866-822-0330
 East Coast (Toll Free): 1-877-574-5644
 China (Toll Free): 800-820-5902
 Europe (Toll Free): 00-800-5742-6777
 India (Toll Free): 000-800-1091188
 Japan (Local): 81-3-5463-7122
 Singapore (Local): 65-6818-5678
 Taiwan (Local): 886-2-8722-3333
2. Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
 Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 806 607 744
For additional Toll and Toll Free numbers click here:
http://mpnumbers.lsi.com
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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Sep 18 09:25:51 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:25:51 -0600
Subject: draft CAP minutes are posted
Message-ID: <mailman.421.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
The draft CAP working group minutes are available at:
  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-226r0.htm
--
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  Wed Sep 18 10:15:43 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:15:43 -0600
Subject: draft SAS PHY/Protocol minutes are posted
Message-ID: <mailman.422.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
The draft SAS PHY/Protocol working group minutes are available at:
  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-227r0.htm
--
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 George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Sep 19 07:53:28 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:53:28 -0600
Subject: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1
 message with two sources
Message-ID: <mailman.423.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309190_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Craig,
Persistent Connection () is not a message it is a confirmation that is sent
to the port layer. There are many confirmations that are same that come from
different states and state machines that are the same.
As for the Persistent Connection () confirmation here is the issue that
adding it to the SL_CC2:Connected state from proposal 13-158.
There are two cases in where the initial EXTEND_CONNECTION from the target
could get lost or corrupted that would cause the handshake to not complete.
a) If the target's EM1 receives a Persistent Connection (Transmit) the target
will transmit the EXTEND_CONNECTION and then wait for an EXTEND_CONNECTION to
be received. If the
EXTEND_CONNECTION is never received, then EM1 never sends a Persistent
Connection Established (Enable) to the port layer and there is no transition
out of EM1. Assuming the port layer
does not initialize to the persistent connection being enabled then it should
have the persistent connection disabled.
b) If the initiator's EM1 receives a Persistent Connection (Wait) the
initiator will wait unit it gets the EXTEND_CONNECTION. When the
EXTEND_CONNECTION is received the initiator will transmit an
EXTEND_CONNECTION and send a Persistent Connection Established (Enable) to
the port layer. At that point there is also a transition to EM2. If, for some
reason, the target never receives the EXTEND_CONNECTION its EM1 will never
send an Persistent Connection Established (Enable) to the port layer nor will
there be a transition to its EM2. The result is the target will not send any
EXTEND_CONNECTIONs. This will cause the initiator's EM2 to timeout resulting
in a an Persistent Connection Established (Disable) to the port layer.
So assuming the port layer defaults to persistent connections disabled there
should be no hangs. However, one should never make assumptions about the
creativity of those reading standards.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Craig Stoops [mailto:Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26 PM
To: Penokie, George; t10 at t10.org
Cc: Voorhees, Bill
Subject: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1 message
with two sources
Hi George,
It was brought to my attention that in the SPL3R04 that the some new language
was added to the SLCC however the message is now generated by both the SLCC
and the EM. Previous proposals only have the message coming from the EM. The
SLCC sends the Persistent Connection () message to the EM, and the EM does
the rest.
The PL should be assuming that unless it has received a message from the EM,
that no PC has been established. So the need for the SLCC to send "disabled"
is not needed, it's obvious that no PC has been enabled as far as the PL is
concerned on a new connection.
Most importantly though, there should only be 1 source of the message, and I
believe the proposals were correct that it should come from the EM. The
source should the solely the EM or solely the SLCC, not a mix. There is no
other messages in the architecture that have two sources.
Craig
6.16.4.5.1 State description
<snipet>
a) an Extend Connection (Transmit) argument, then this state shall:
A) send a Persistent Connection (Transmit) message to the SSP_EM link layer
state machine (see
6.18.9.12); and
B) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer.;
b) an Extend Connection (Wait) argument, then this state shall:
A) send a Persistent Connection (Wait) message to the SSP_EM link layer state
machine (see
6.18.9.12); and
B) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer;
6.18.9.12.2 SSP_EM1:Establish state
This state establishes a persistent connection (see 6.18.1).
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Transmit) message, then this
state:
a) shall send a Transmit EXTEND_CONNECTION message to the SSP transmitter;
and
b) if this state receives an EXTEND_CONNECTION Received message, then this
state shall send a
Persistent Connection Established (Enabled) confirmation to the port layer.
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Wait) message and receives an
EXTEND_CONNECTION
Received message, then this state shall:
a) send a Transmit EXTEND_CONNECTION message to the SSP transmitter; and
b) send a Persistent Connection Established (Enabled) confirmation to the
port layer.
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Off) message, then this state
shall:
a) ignore EXTEND_CONNECTION Received messages; and
b) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer.


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Sep 19 09:16:07 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:16:07 -0600
Subject: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1
 message with two sources
Message-ID: <mailman.424.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309191_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Craig,
The Frame Transmitted confirmation may originate from the
SMP_IP2:Transmit_Frame state or the SSP_TF3:Transmit_Frame state.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Craig Stoops [mailto:Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Penokie, George; t10 at t10.org
Cc: Voorhees, Bill
Subject: RE: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1
message with two sources
Hi George,
I agree that one should not make assumptions about the default states and
would agree that language be added to the PortLayer to state that the default
state is P.C.E (Disabled). As you mention, if the default state of the PL is
PCE disabled, then the additional messages are not needed, so I think that
would be a cleaner and simpler solution in the spec.
Another alternative is to have the EM send the P.C.E (disabled) confirmation
to the PL upon entry to EM1, thus preserving a single source for the
confirmation.
You mentioned there are other cases of messages or confirmations originating
|from two different state machines. I can not however find any examples of
that in the standard. Can you point me to some that have two sources outside
the new material? I'm pretty sure that Elliot was very careful not to allow
that and it was a fundamental rule.
Thanks
Craig
From: Penokie, George [mailto:George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Craig Stoops; t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Cc: Voorhees, Bill
Subject: RE: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1
message with two sources
Craig,
Persistent Connection () is not a message it is a confirmation that is sent
to the port layer. There are many confirmations that are same that come from
different states and state machines that are the same.
As for the Persistent Connection () confirmation here is the issue that
adding it to the SL_CC2:Connected state from proposal 13-158.
There are two cases in where the initial EXTEND_CONNECTION from the target
could get lost or corrupted that would cause the handshake to not complete.
a) If the target's EM1 receives a Persistent Connection (Transmit) the target
will transmit the EXTEND_CONNECTION and then wait for an EXTEND_CONNECTION to
be received. If the
EXTEND_CONNECTION is never received, then EM1 never sends a Persistent
Connection Established (Enable) to the port layer and there is no transition
out of EM1. Assuming the port layer
does not initialize to the persistent connection being enabled then it should
have the persistent connection disabled.
b) If the initiator's EM1 receives a Persistent Connection (Wait) the
initiator will wait unit it gets the EXTEND_CONNECTION. When the
EXTEND_CONNECTION is received the initiator will transmit an
EXTEND_CONNECTION and send a Persistent Connection Established (Enable) to
the port layer. At that point there is also a transition to EM2. If, for some
reason, the target never receives the EXTEND_CONNECTION its EM1 will never
send an Persistent Connection Established (Enable) to the port layer nor will
there be a transition to its EM2. The result is the target will not send any
EXTEND_CONNECTIONs. This will cause the initiator's EM2 to timeout resulting
in a an Persistent Connection Established (Disable) to the port layer.
So assuming the port layer defaults to persistent connections disabled there
should be no hangs. However, one should never make assumptions about the
creativity of those reading standards.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: Craig Stoops [mailto:Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26 PM
To: Penokie, George; t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Cc: Voorhees, Bill
Subject: Typo in latest spec SPL3R04 for Persistent Connections - 1 message
with two sources
Hi George,
It was brought to my attention that in the SPL3R04 that the some new language
was added to the SLCC however the message is now generated by both the SLCC
and the EM. Previous proposals only have the message coming from the EM. The
SLCC sends the Persistent Connection () message to the EM, and the EM does
the rest.
The PL should be assuming that unless it has received a message from the EM,
that no PC has been established. So the need for the SLCC to send "disabled"
is not needed, it's obvious that no PC has been enabled as far as the PL is
concerned on a new connection.
Most importantly though, there should only be 1 source of the message, and I
believe the proposals were correct that it should come from the EM. The
source should the solely the EM or solely the SLCC, not a mix. There is no
other messages in the architecture that have two sources.
Craig
6.16.4.5.1 State description
<snipet>
a) an Extend Connection (Transmit) argument, then this state shall:
A) send a Persistent Connection (Transmit) message to the SSP_EM link layer
state machine (see
6.18.9.12); and
B) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer.;
b) an Extend Connection (Wait) argument, then this state shall:
A) send a Persistent Connection (Wait) message to the SSP_EM link layer state
machine (see
6.18.9.12); and
B) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer;
6.18.9.12.2 SSP_EM1:Establish state
This state establishes a persistent connection (see 6.18.1).
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Transmit) message, then this
state:
a) shall send a Transmit EXTEND_CONNECTION message to the SSP transmitter;
and
b) if this state receives an EXTEND_CONNECTION Received message, then this
state shall send a
Persistent Connection Established (Enabled) confirmation to the port layer.
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Wait) message and receives an
EXTEND_CONNECTION
Received message, then this state shall:
a) send a Transmit EXTEND_CONNECTION message to the SSP transmitter; and
b) send a Persistent Connection Established (Enabled) confirmation to the
port layer.
If this state receives a Persistent Connection (Off) message, then this state
shall:
a) ignore EXTEND_CONNECTION Received messages; and
b) send a Persistent Connection Established (Disabled) confirmation to the
port layer.


From Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com  Thu Sep 19 14:39:53 2013
From: Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com (Craig Stoops)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:39:53 +0000
Subject: FW: Comment on T10/13-138r0 SPL-3 CREDIT ADVANCE for OPEN_ACCEPT
Message-ID: <mailman.425.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309192_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi Tim,
A side effect of your proposal is that if the recipient of the OAF does not
support the credit advance, that the originator of the connection will have
sacrificed 1 credit permanently for that connection since the OAF originator
has no way of knowing whether the recipient will take advantage of the
implied credit.
One way around this is to borrow from Fibre Channel and have the recipient
ignore the 1st RRDY received IF it supports the credit advance bit in the
received OAF and that bit was sent. In keeping with that, the originator of
the OAF would always send an RRDY for the advanced credit, which will be
discarded if advance is supported or otherwise used normally if advance is
not supported. This will keep the number of RRDY's consistent with the
credits in the system regardless of use of credit advance or not.
Otherwise, the rrdy's will always be 1 less, and the originator will have to
hold the credit in reserve throughout the connection. A bit of a waste.
Another, more complicated mechanism is to introduce the concept like login
credits / AL bb credit where discovery of the endpoint tells us about the
number of implied credits for new connections. I'm not in favor of that
solution.
Lastly, wish this could somehow be symentric, because clearly the one that
would benefit  the most if the originator of the OAF since we KNOW that side
has a frame to transmit.
Thoughts?
Craig


From bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com  Thu Sep 19 22:30:45 2013
From: bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com (Bill Martin-SSI)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:30:45 +0000
Subject: Comment on T10/13-138r0 SPL-3 CREDIT ADVANCE for OPEN_ACCEPT
Message-ID: <mailman.426.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Bill Martin-SSI <bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com>
*
Craig
Your first suggestion was discussed st the meeting.  As to the second,	about
the credit from the other side,  the originator of the OAF has to wait for an
acknowledgement that the connection is open which may immediately be followed
by an RRDY so there really isn't much extra delay in that direction.
Bill Martin
SSD I/O Standards
Samsung Semiconductors, Inc.
Cell (408) 499-1839
-------- Original message --------
From: Craig Stoops <Craig.Stoops at synopsys.com>
Date: 09/19/2013 3:28 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Tim Symons (Tim.Symons at pmcs.com)" <Tim.Symons at pmcs.com>
Cc: t10 at t10.org
Subject: FW: Comment on T10/13-138r0 SPL-3 CREDIT ADVANCE for OPEN_ACCEPT
Hi Tim,
A side effect of your proposal is that if the recipient of the OAF does not
support the credit advance, that the originator of the connection will have
sacrificed 1 credit permanently for that connection since the OAF originator
has no way of knowing whether the recipient will take advantage of the
implied credit.
One way around this is to borrow from Fibre Channel and have the recipient
ignore the 1st RRDY received IF it supports the credit advance bit in the
received OAF and that bit was sent. In keeping with that, the originator of
the OAF would always send an RRDY for the advanced credit, which will be
discarded if advance is supported or otherwise used normally if advance is
not supported. This will keep the number of RRDY?s consistent with the
credits in the system regardless of use of credit advance or not.
Otherwise, the rrdy?s will always be 1 less, and the originator will have to
hold the credit in reserve throughout the connection. A bit of a waste.
Another, more complicated mechanism is to introduce the concept like login
credits / AL bb credit where discovery of the endpoint tells us about the
number of implied credits for new connections. I?m not in favor of that
solution.
Lastly, wish this could somehow be symentric, because clearly the one that
would benefit  the most if the originator of the OAF since we KNOW that side
has a frame to transmit.
Thoughts?
Craig
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From IeWei.Njoo at pmcs.com  Fri Sep 20 17:46:42 2013
From: IeWei.Njoo at pmcs.com (Ie Njoo)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:46:42 -0700
Subject: pqi-r07 is available
Message-ID: <mailman.427.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309201_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
PQI-R07 which is the revision of PQI that contains all the Letter Ballot
comment resolutions is available in T10:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=pqi-r07.pdf
This is also the revision that has been approved during the Plenary
Meeting #117 Sep 16-20 2013 to be forwarded to INCITS.
Regards,
Ie Wei Njoo
PMC-Sierra


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep 21 09:41:41 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:41:41 -0600
Subject: T10 letter ballot on forwarding SPL-3
Message-ID: <mailman.428.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Attention T10 voting members:
A T10 letter ballot has been issued on forwarding SPL-3 revision 6 to INCITS
for first public review. This ballot closes at 12 noon MDT on October 31,
2013. The T10.org letter ballot automation had a glitch when the ballot was
issued and some notification emails were not sent out (including the one to
me). I am still debugging what went wrong, but please do review SPL-3
revision 6 and vote using the following link:
  http://www.t10.org/members/13-247r0.htm
Thanks,
John
--
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 Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Sat Sep 21 09:45:03 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:45:03 +0000
Subject: SPC-4 LB Resolution
Message-ID: <mailman.429.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309211_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309211_nameless-3608-4.txt">nameless-3608-4.txt</a>

SPC-4 Letter Ballot resolution 9/30 3-5 pm CDT
Ralph Weber invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 275 308 743
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=275308743
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): 1-866-546-3377  (US)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-234-7872  (US)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6329833233&num=1866-546
-3377&num2=1719-234-7872
Attendee access code: 632 983 3233
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 Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Sat Sep 21 11:17:20 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:17:20 +0000
Subject: SPC-4 LB Resolution
Message-ID: <mailman.430.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309212_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309212_nameless-2932-3.txt">nameless-2932-3.txt</a>

SPC-4 Letter Ballot resolution Tues 10/8 3-5 pm CDT
Ralph Weber invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 270 638 937
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=270638937
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): 1-866-546-3377  (US)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-234-7872  (US)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6329833233&num=1866-546
-3377&num2=1719-234-7872
Attendee access code: 632 983 3233
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 Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Sat Sep 21 11:18:54 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:18:54 +0000
Subject: SPC-4 LB Resolution
Message-ID: <mailman.431.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309213_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309213_nameless-556-3.txt">nameless-556-3.txt</a>

SPC-4 Letter Ballot resolution Wed 10/16 3-5 pm CDT
Ralph Weber invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 278 619 613
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=278619613
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): 1-866-546-3377  (US)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-234-7872  (US)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6329833233&num=1866-546
-3377&num2=1719-234-7872
Attendee access code: 632 983 3233
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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep 21 23:02:06 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 00:02:06 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/09/15
Message-ID: <mailman.432.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SAM-5 ABORT TASK with overlapped commands
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/12-189r5   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   230333 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-189r5.pdf
SPC-5: Device Internal Status Dump
(by: Frederick Knight)
T10/13-029r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/15   243485 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-029r1.pdf
T13 Liaison Report to T10
(by: Dan Colegrove)
T10/13-039r4   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   65687 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-039r4.pdf
SSC-5: Logical Block Protection Length error example
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/13-049r2   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   61681 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-049r2.pdf
SBC-4 SPC-5 Supported Block lengths and protection types VPD page
(by: William Martin)
T10/13-094r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   144270 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-094r1.pdf
SBC-4 SPC-5 Supported Block lengths and protection types VPD page
(by: William Martin)
T10/13-094r2   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   142416 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-094r2.pdf
SPL-3: Would Hunt
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-208r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   92667 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-208r1.pdf
SBC-3 Define read, verify, and write operations
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-213r2   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   284518 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-213r2.pdf
SBC-3 Define read, verify, and write operations
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-213r3   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   284727 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-213r3.pdf
Project Proposal: Serial Attached SCSI - 4
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-215r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   99304 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-215r1.pdf
SPC-x Add new command timeout sense codes
(by: Gerald Houlder)
T10/13-218r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   26729 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-218r1.pdf
SPL-3: Persistent Connection Establishment Fix
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-222r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   70722 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-222r1.pdf
Minutes of CAP Working Group - September 16-17, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-226r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   66364 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-226r0.htm
Minutes of CAP Working Group - September 16-17, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-226r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   169848 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-226r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS Protocol Working Group - September 18, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-227r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/21   39129 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-227r0.htm
Minutes of SAS Protocol Working Group - September 18, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-227r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/21   111731 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-227r0.pdf
SAM-5/SPC-4: Conglomerate / Hierarchical interaction clarification
(by: Frederick Knight)
T10/13-231r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/15   169441 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-231r0.pdf
Minutes of SSC-5 Working Group - September 18, 2013
(by: Paul Suhler)
T10/13-233r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   108726 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-233r0.pdf
SSC-5 Working Group Report to Plenary, September 2013
(by: Paul Suhler)
T10/13-234r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   25549 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-234r0.pdf
SPC-5, Lack of clarity of LUN scope in WRITE BUFFER
(by: John Geldman)
T10/13-235r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/16   25300 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-235r0.pdf
SPC-5, Lack of clarity of LUN scope in WRITE BUFFER
(by: John Geldman)
T10/13-235r1   Uploaded: 2013/09/17   11534 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-235r1.pdf
SAS-4, 24Gb/s, Alternate Internal 8x connector Proposal
(by: Greg McSorley)
T10/13-236r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/17   870361 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-236r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group - September 17, 2013
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-237r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   45353 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-237r0.pdf
SAS-3 PHY: ISI stress & TxRx connection data
(by: Graeme Boyd)
T10/13-238r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/17   425246 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-238r0.pdf
SAS-3 letter ballot comment resolution, SAS3_EYEOPENING pulse response
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/13-240r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/17   193201 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-240r0.pdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06l
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-241r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   25616 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-241r0.fdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06l
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-241r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   86203 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-241r0.pdf
PQI Sub Letter Ballot Comments Incorporated in pqi-r06l
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/13-241r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   125952 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-241r0.xls
SAM-5: SOP for Table B.2
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/13-242r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   174235 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-242r0.pdf
STA - T10 Liaison Report September 19, 2013
(by: Marty Czekalski)
T10/13-243r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/18   312062 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-243r0.pdf
IETF Liaison Report to T10
(by: David Black)
T10/13-244r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   679687 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-244r0.pdf
SNIA Liaison Report Sept 2013
(by: Frederick Knight)
T10/13-245r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   89244 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-245r0.pdf
JEDEC JC64.1 Liason Report 2013-09
(by: John Geldman)
T10/13-246r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   110100 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-246r0.pdf
Letter Ballot on forwarding SPL-3 to First Public Review
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-247r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   34279 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-247r0.pdf
Agenda for T10 Meeting #117
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-249r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   14956 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-249r0.pdf
T10 Project Summary - September 2013
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-250r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/21   29814 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-250r0.pdf
Jeopardy Letter for November 2013 meeting
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-251r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/19   30858 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-251r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
PCIe(r) architecture Queuing Interface (PQI)
(Editor: Ie-Wei Njoo)
 Rev: 07       Uploaded: 2013/09/20   2213648 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=pqi-r07.pdf
SAS Protocol Layer - 3 (SPL-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 05       Uploaded: 2013/09/19   9474894 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl3r05.pdf
SAS Protocol Layer - 3 (SPL-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 06       Uploaded: 2013/09/19   9445708 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl3r06.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/09/22 at 00:02:05)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From jgeldman at micron.com  Sun Sep 22 22:49:14 2013
From: jgeldman at micron.com (John Geldman (jgeldman))
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 05:49:14 +0000
Subject: ANSI INCITS TR38-2005 vs ACS-3
Message-ID: <mailman.433.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309230_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I don???t have a reason, but a further question.
Why isn???t TR38-2005 available on t13.org in the technical reports area?
Thanks,
John
From: owner-t13 at LISTS.WDC.COM [mailto:owner-t13 at LISTS.WDC.COM] On Behalf Of
Ralph Weber
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:48 AM
To: T13 at T13.org
Subject: [T13] ANSI INCITS TR38-2005 vs ACS-3
Can anybody justify the presence of the following normative reference in
ACS-3?
SMART Command Transport (SCT) -- ANSI INCITS TR38-2005
In ACS-3, the entirety of Clause 8 and Annex C are devoted to defining (dare
I say "redefining") SCT.
I cannot think of a valid reason for putting the 2005 TR in the Bibliography,
let alone Clause 2.
All the best,
.Ralph


From apoorva.vats at synopsys.com  Sun Sep 22 23:46:19 2013
From: apoorva.vats at synopsys.com (Apoorva Vats)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 06:46:19 +0000
Subject: SMP REQUEST/SMP RESPONSE timer query
Message-ID: <mailman.434.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309231_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi ,
I sent a Query regarding SMP REQUEST/SMP RESPONSE timer on August 22 and
Did not receive any update on this.
Please update on this query.
Regards,
Apoorva
From: Apoorva Vats
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:24 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: SMP REQUEST/SMP RESPONSE timer query
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 curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Mon Sep 23 08:47:26 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:47:26 +0000
Subject: SOP Teleconference
Message-ID: <mailman.435.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309232_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

We have a teleconference set for today.  I am still working on the changes
|from plenary week and am not quite ready.  I can still hold the conference,
but think the time could be best used without the conference.
-------------------------------------------------
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.


From bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com  Mon Sep 23 09:24:41 2013
From: bill.martin at ssi.samsung.com (Bill Martin-SSI)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:24:41 +0000
Subject: SOP Teleconference
Message-ID: <mailman.436.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309233_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I am fine with canceling. If you have nothing constructive to discuss today,
then it would be better to wait until October 7.
Bill Martin
SSD I/O Standards
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cell (916) 765-6875
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
Stevens
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:47 AM
To: T10 at t10.org
Subject: SOP Teleconference
We have a teleconference set for today.  I am still working on the changes
|from plenary week and am not quite ready.  I can still hold the conference,
but think the time could be best used without the conference.
-------------------------------------------------
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.


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Mon Sep 23 10:35:30 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:35:30 +0000
Subject: Canceled: SOPQI WG
Message-ID: <mailman.437.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309234_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309234_nameless-3300-3.txt">nameless-3300-3.txt</a>

17-Sep Please note that the conference bridge has changed.
Date: 23-Sep-2013, Time: 12:30-2:30 Pacific Time
Meeting to focus on SOP


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Mon Sep 23 10:37:04 2013
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:37:04 +0000
Subject: SOP Teleconference
Message-ID: <mailman.438.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309235_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The ayes have it for cancelling the meeting.  I have issued a cancellation
notice.  The next telecon is 7-Oct.
-------------------------------------------------
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.
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
Stevens
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:47 AM
To: T10 at t10.org
Subject: SOP Teleconference
We have a teleconference set for today.  I am still working on the changes
|from plenary week and am not quite ready.  I can still hold the conference,
but think the time could be best used without the conference.
-------------------------------------------------
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.


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Mon Sep 23 13:12:50 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:12:50 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector clean up
Message-ID: <mailman.439.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
It is time again to clean up the T10 Reflector. The following addresses have
bounced consistently since the last clean up and are being removed:
  Alex.Mohandas at emc.com
  pritchard_jason at emc.com
  B18529 at freescale.com
  Jack.Hollins at lsi.com
  dave_davis at uk.xyratex.com
  Larry.Lomelino at Emulex.Com
  Anthony_K_Wright at Dell.com
  ykagan at unigen.com
  ed.cady at volex.com
  markben at microsoft.com
  ErnandoAriel.M.Bangayan at bitmicro.com
  Noeme.P.Mateo at bitmicro.com
  satoshi.kitani at jp.sony.com
  Tim.Mcleod at netapp.com
  agy at netapp.com
  bharaths at netapp.com
  mark.nossokoff at netapp.com
  keith.son at netapp.com
  satoshi.kitani at jp.sony.com
  bschuh at us.ibm.com
  daniel.colegrove at hgst.com
These people may re-subscribe (hopefully, with a better address) by using the
following URL:
  http://www.t10.org/t10r.htm
--
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 dave.b.anderson at seagate.com  Tue Sep 24 07:51:59 2013
From: dave.b.anderson at seagate.com (Dave B Anderson)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:51:59 -0500
Subject: SMR drive session at Linux Plumbers
Message-ID: <mailman.440.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309240_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

FYI I used the slides at the Library of Congress yesterday, and they will
post the slides as well.
Dave
On Sep 24, 2013 9:23 AM, "Gerry Houlder" <gerry.houlder at seagate.com> wrote:
> A PDF version of the slides is available from T10.org site as document
> 13-229r0.pdf. Anyone can download proposals from this site, but first time
> visitors will be asked to register first. i have attached that document
> here for convenience.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:31 PM, James Borden <James.Borden at wdc.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, we were extremely happy at the attendance and great questions.	I am
>> working on a summary of the meeting for the group; this will help us be
>> well prepared for CloudOpen next month.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> James Borden
>>
>> Director of Enterprise Storage Marketing
>> Western Digital Corporation
>>
>> 2331 130th Ave NE, Suite 110
>> Bellevue WA 98005
>>
>> 425-213-3830 (Mobile)
>> 425-755-1034 (Office)
>> 425-636-1411 (Fax)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ric Wheeler [mailto:rwheeler at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:08 PM
>> To: Jorge.Campello at hgst.com
>> Cc: Dave B Anderson; Curtis Stevens; Dan Colegrove; Gerry Houlder;
>> Christoph Hellwig; James Borden; Jim Hatfield; Jim Malina; Mike
>> Fitzpatrick; Mike H Miller; Patrick Hery; T10 Reflector; William Boyle;
>> Zvonimir Bandic
>> Subject: SMR drive session at Linux Plumbers
>>
>>
>> My impression is that we had a very solid session at plumbers, I think
>> that we managed to reach out to a fair number of developers (including
>> Christoph in this email :)). Thanks to everyone for attending!
>>
>> Can we get a copy of the slides presented to share broadly?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ric
>>
>>
>


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Sep 24 13:01:11 2013
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:01:11 -0600
Subject: T10 Working Draft Assignment: sbc3r35j
Message-ID: <mailman.441.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
A clean version of SBC-3 (sbcr35j) with all markups removed is now available
on the T10 website at the following URL: 
  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r35j.pdf
A version of SBC-3 (sccr35i) with all the markups from the letter ballot is
also available on the T10 website.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
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 rajneesh.kumar at synopsys.com  Wed Sep 25 05:19:49 2013
From: rajneesh.kumar at synopsys.com (Rajneesh Kumar)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:19:49 +0000
Subject: Issue in description for Error code field (ERROR Response TTIU)
Message-ID: <mailman.442.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309250_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi,
In below mentioned portion of "Table 66 - ERROR CODE field" (referred spl-3
revision 04, 24-July 2013), I have a finding:
?  If we consider description (a) of 1Ah Error code then there are valid
combinations (refer table 63) where none of coefficient request are set to
11b. Hence for any valid combination, false error will be reported.
I think description (b) is sufficient for this error code.
Code
Name
Description
1Ah
RESERVED COEFFICIENT REQUEST COMBINATION
One of the following occurs:
a) none of the coefficient requests are set 11b (i.e., reserved) (see table
62);
b) the combination of the coefficient 3 request, coefficient 2 request, and 
coefficient 1 request is reserved (see table 63).
Please share your views on the same.
Regards,
Rajneesh


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Sep 25 10:02:06 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:02:06 -0600
Subject: draft T10 Plenary minutes posted
Message-ID: <mailman.443.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
The draft minutes of the September 19, 2013 T10 Plenary meeting #117 are
available at:
  http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-228r0.htm
--
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 Frederick.Knight at netapp.com  Wed Sep 25 12:14:23 2013
From: Frederick.Knight at netapp.com (Knight, Frederick)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:14:23 +0000
Subject: SBC-3r35i/j issue
Message-ID: <mailman.444.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309252_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

OK folks, it looks like we made a mistake in 13-213r3.	We had an a) ... or
b) list where adding a word caused a significant functional change.  There
are 2 possible corrections (remove the word we added, or add more words).  My
suggestion is that we add the additional words so that the both the a)
conditions and the b) conditions apply to the then portion of the statement:
4.7.3.7 Thin provisioned logical unit resource exhaustion considerations
If:
a)     a write operation is requested ... ; or
b)	an unmap operation that ... is requested ...
then the device server shall terminate the command requesting the unmap
operation with CHECK ...
The problem is the change from the bare "operation" to a specific "unmap
operation".  The same addition of the word "unmap" occurs in the second a)/b)
list as well, and the addition of that word in both places is the source of
this new problem.
The addition of that word now restricts the "then" clause to only apply to
the b) case of the "if" and the a) case of the "if" now has no text in the
"then" clause.	The "then" clause is supposed to apply to both cases - a) ;
or b).
Either we need to remove "unmap" from that sentence. Or we need to change it
to include both the unmap operation and the write operation - as in something
like:
If:
a)     a write operation is requested ... ; or
b)	an unmap operation that ... is requested ...
then the device server shall terminate the command requesting the write
operation or the unmap operation with CHECK ...
		Fred Knight


From Elliott at hp.com  Wed Sep 25 13:13:25 2013
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:13:25 +0000
Subject: SBC-3r35i/j issue
Message-ID: <mailman.445.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309253_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Based on teleconference discussion, 13-213r1 to r2 was supposed to remove
"unmap" from both paragraphs, but that was missed and not noticed for r3.
---
Rob Elliott    HP Server Storage
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Knight,
Frederick
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September, 2013 2:14 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: SBC-3r35i/j issue
OK folks, it looks like we made a mistake in 13-213r3.	We had an a) ... or
b) list where adding a word caused a significant functional change.  There
are 2 possible corrections (remove the word we added, or add more words).  My
suggestion is that we add the additional words so that the both the a)
conditions and the b) conditions apply to the then portion of the statement:
4.7.3.7 Thin provisioned logical unit resource exhaustion considerations
If:
a)	 a write operation is requested ... ; or
b)	an unmap operation that ... is requested ...
then the device server shall terminate the command requesting the unmap
operation with CHECK ...
The problem is the change from the bare "operation" to a specific "unmap
operation".  The same addition of the word "unmap" occurs in the second a)/b)
list as well, and the addition of that word in both places is the source of
this new problem.
The addition of that word now restricts the "then" clause to only apply to
the b) case of the "if" and the a) case of the "if" now has no text in the
"then" clause.	The "then" clause is supposed to apply to both cases - a) ;
or b).
Either we need to remove "unmap" from that sentence. Or we need to change it
to include both the unmap operation and the write operation - as in something
like:
If:
a)	 a write operation is requested ... ; or
b)	an unmap operation that ... is requested ...
then the device server shall terminate the command requesting the write
operation or the unmap operation with CHECK ...
		Fred Knight


From Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Fri Sep 27 13:53:59 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:53:59 +0000
Subject: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
Message-ID: <mailman.446.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309270_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Based on a preliminary review, Western Digital engineers have concerns about
the two paragraphs in 4.15 of SBC-3 r35j that begin as follows:
  *   For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify
operation:
  *   For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
The initial concern was that some interpretations of the 'read operation that
is a verify operation' case prohibit the use of read-ahead for verify
operations.
At a minimum, the cited paragraphs need to be revised as follows to maintain
consistency throughout 4.15 (note, the write operation definition is included
to demonstrate the need for consistency).
For each LBA accessed by a write operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall:
A) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache;
B) invalidate that LBA in the cache and perform a write medium operation to
that LBA; or
C) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache and perform a write medium operation to that LBA.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall perform:
A) a read cache operation from that LBA; or
B) 2) the device server shall perform a read medium operation from that LBA.
For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for the LBA than the
medium, then the device server:
A) shall perform a write medium operation to that LBA;
B) 2) the device server may invalidate that LBA in the cache; and
C) 3) the device server shall perform a verify medium operation from that
LBA.
Unless the second level of list is applied to all three paragraphs, the use
of 'that LBA' is ambiguous vis a vis the if clause that establishes the
operative conditions.
Western Digital also is obliged to note that none of the three cited
paragraphs cover the case where the cache fails to contain more recent
logical block data for 'that LBA' despite the fact that the presence of a
list based on this condition implies that such coverage ought to be present
(i.e., the if clause could equally well be folded into the list introduction
statement).
To push the envelope a bit farther, some Western Digital reviewers suggested
that the specific case of a 'read operation that is a verify operation' could
be more fully stated as follows.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is a verify operation, the
device server shall perform a read cache operation only if:
a) the logical block data in the cache for that LBA is the result of a read
medium operation; and
b) no subsequent write operation has been processed for that LBA.
Warning: This comment is the result of a very preliminary review by Western
Digital engineers. The Western Digital review of SBC-3 r35j is ongoing, and
more issues seem likely to be unearthed. Due to the gravity of this issue
Western Digital concluded that prompt disclosure would best serve the
interests of T10 and the industry.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Fri Sep 27 14:16:30 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:16:30 +0000
Subject: SBC-3 r35j 4.15 text 'xxx medium operation that is not part of an
 xxx operation' leaves too much to the imagination
Message-ID: <mailman.447.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309271_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

While some of those present thought the intent was somehow related to
specifying the proper operation of cache coherency implementations, Western
Digital reviewers found the following two list introductions incomprehensibly
vague in SBC-3 r35j.
  *   For each LBA accessed by a write medium operation that is not part of a
write operation:
  *   For each LBA accessed by a read medium operation that is not part of a
read operation:
Is this intended to reach into the design of background operations?
Proposing a solution based on the current, quicksand text seems like a
dubious endeavor, at best.
If the intent is to specify who a device server maintains cache coherency,
the majority of Western Digital reviewers question the need for such
untestable requirements in a T10 standard. If some other concern underlies
the existing text, then perhaps the addition of an e.g. immediately prior to
the colon will set the proper tone.
One fear is clear. If nothing is done, over jealous test engineers are likely
to extend their vision of the cache to include the sector write buffer that
is part of the hardware that actually records data on the medium.
Warning: This comment is the result of a very preliminary review by Western
Digital engineers. The Western Digital review of SBC-3 r35j is ongoing, and
more issues seem likely to be unearthed. Due to the gravity of this issue
Western Digital concluded that prompt disclosure would best serve the
interests of T10 and the industry.
All the best,
.Ralph


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep 28 01:00:00 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 List Manager)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 02:00:00 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector Monthly Reminder
Message-ID: <mailman.448.1441607390.22530.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 lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Sep 28 23:01:30 2013
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:01:30 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2013/09/22
Message-ID: <mailman.449.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r8   Uploaded: 2013/09/23   7792265 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r8.fdf
SBC-3 Letter Ballot Comments Resolutions
(by: George Penokie)
T10/13-089r8   Uploaded: 2013/09/23   7749976 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-089r8.pdf
Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #117 - September 19, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-228r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/25   136258 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-228r0.htm
Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #117 - September 19, 2013
(by: Weber & Lohmeyer)
T10/13-228r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/25   293795 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-228r0.pdf
Minutes of SOP-PQI Working Group - 18-19 September 2013
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/13-239r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/24   189540 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-239r0.pdf
T10 Project Summary - September 2013
(by: John Lohmeyer)
T10/13-250r0   Uploaded: 2013/09/23   29876 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-250r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 35i      Uploaded: 2013/09/23   3150767 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r35i.pdf
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 35j      Uploaded: 2013/09/24   2839671 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r35j.pdf
(Report generated on 2013/09/29 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 Elliott at hp.com  Mon Sep 30 08:04:07 2013
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:04:07 +0000
Subject: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
Message-ID: <mailman.450.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309300_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Friday, 27 September, 2013 3:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
Based on a preliminary review, Western Digital engineers have concerns about
the two paragraphs in 4.15 of SBC-3 r35j that begin as follows:
  *   For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify
operation:
  *   For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
The initial concern was that some interpretations of the 'read operation that
is a verify operation' case prohibit the use of read-ahead for verify
operations.
At a minimum, the cited paragraphs need to be revised as follows to maintain
consistency throughout 4.15 (note, the write operation definition is included
to demonstrate the need for consistency).
For each LBA accessed by a write operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall:
A) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache;
B) invalidate that LBA in the cache and perform a write medium operation to
that LBA; or
C) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache and perform a write medium operation to that LBA.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall perform:
A) a read cache operation from that LBA; or
B) 2) the device server shall perform a read medium operation from that LBA.
RE: That wording for 1) B) would mean to read from medium even though there
is more recent data in cache, which is not correct. If there is more recent 
data in cache, it must be used.
For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for the LBA than the
medium, then the device server:
A) shall perform a write medium operation to that LBA;
B) 2) the device server may invalidate that LBA in the cache; and
C) 3) the device server shall perform a verify medium operation from that
LBA.
Unless the second level of list is applied to all three paragraphs, the use
of 'that LBA' is ambiguous vis a vis the if clause that establishes the
operative conditions.
RE: For 1)B), Step 2) is not prefaced by "if ... more recent" because step 1)
made the cache and medium identical. For step 1)C), the verify medium
operation is always eventually performed; it's not just if there was a cache
hit. The order is also very important here: 1) write to medium, 2) invalidate
if desired, 3) verify.	Running the verify before the data from cache has
made it to the medium would not be correct. "that LBA" refers to "For each
LBA" introducing the list.
Western Digital also is obliged to note that none of the three cited
paragraphs cover the case where the cache fails to contain more recent
logical block data for 'that LBA' despite the fact that the presence of a
list based on this condition implies that such coverage ought to be present
(i.e., the if clause could equally well be folded into the list introduction
statement).
RE: That is not a problem unless the "if a cache contains more recent"
preface applies to more list items than it should.
To push the envelope a bit farther, some Western Digital reviewers suggested
that the specific case of a 'read operation that is a verify operation' could
be more fully stated as follows.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is a verify operation, the
device server shall perform a read cache operation only if:
a) the logical block data in the cache for that LBA is the result of a read
medium operation; and
b) no subsequent write operation has been processed for that LBA.
RE: It doesn't matter how the cache got the data.  If there is more recent
data in the cache, all verify operations need to force that data to media
before performing the verify medium operation.
Warning: This comment is the result of a very preliminary review by Western
Digital engineers. The Western Digital review of SBC-3 r35j is ongoing, and
more issues seem likely to be unearthed. Due to the gravity of this issue
Western Digital concluded that prompt disclosure would best serve the
interests of T10 and the industry.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Mon Sep 30 08:33:42 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:33:42 +0000
Subject: VERIFY & how the data got into the cache
Message-ID: <mailman.451.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309301_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Unless I misheard them, WD engineers beg to differ with the following
comments in the "4.15 specs for read operation" thread:
<<begin quote>>
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is a verify operation, the
device server shall perform a read cache operation only if:
a) the logical block data in the cache for that LBA is the result of a read
medium operation; and
b) no subsequent write operation has been processed for that LBA.
RE: It doesn?t matter how the cache got the data.  If there is more recent
data in the cache, all verify operations need to force that data to media
before performing the verify medium operation.
<<end quote>>
How the data got into the cache very much matters (or so my experts tell me).
For this reason, WD engineering sees the current 4.15 requirements as being
fixated on the wrong thing.
VERIFY commands are required to use data that is read from the medium. If the
cache contains data that is newer then:
  1.  that data must be written to the medium,
  2.  the cache must be invalidated, and
  3.  the data must be read from the medium (and stored in cache if so
desired).
Any specification that says otherwise is misleading the reader.
It is not acceptable to write the newer cache data to the medium and then use
the cache contents without first reading the medium, unless the goal of the
letter ballot changes is to negate the first sentence in the SBC-2 definition
of VERIFY ... to whit:
"The VERIFY (10) command (see table 53) requests that the device server
verify the specified logical block(s) on the medium."
Furthermore, the "newer data in cache" issue should be covered by b) in the
WD proposed wording.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Elliott at hp.com  Mon Sep 30 08:40:34 2013
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:34 +0000
Subject: SBC-3 r35j 4.15 text 'xxx medium operation that is not part of
 an xxx operation' leaves too much to the imagination
Message-ID: <mailman.452.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309302_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Friday, 27 September, 2013 4:17 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: SBC-3 r35j 4.15 text 'xxx medium operation that is not part of an
xxx operation' leaves too much to the imagination
While some of those present thought the intent was somehow related to
specifying the proper operation of cache coherency implementations, Western
Digital reviewers found the following two list introductions incomprehensibly
vague in SBC-3 r35j.
  *   For each LBA accessed by a write medium operation that is not part of a
write operation:
  *   For each LBA accessed by a read medium operation that is not part of a
read operation:
Is this intended to reach into the design of background operations?
Proposing a solution based on the current, quicksand text seems like a
dubious endeavor, at best.
If the intent is to specify who a device server maintains cache coherency,
the majority of Western Digital reviewers question the need for such
untestable requirements in a T10 standard. If some other concern underlies
the existing text, then perhaps the addition of an e.g. immediately prior to
the colon will set the proper tone.
The intent is to be clear that every read medium operation must get data from
the cache if more recent data is there, and every write medium operation must
keep the cache up to date.
It's a catch-all for commands like WRITE AND VERIFY and other model material
that refers directly to medium operations but doesn't mention the cache
impacts:
		Page 195
The WRITE AND VERIFY (10) command (see table 111) requests that the device
server:
1) transfer the specified the logical block data for the command from the
Data-Out Buffer;
2) perform write medium operations to the specified LBAs;
3) perform verify operations from the specified LBAs; and
4) if specified, perform a compare operation on:
		A) the logical block data transferred from the Data-Out
Buffer; and
		B) the logical block data from the verify operations....
Maybe WRITE AND VERIFY should just be described as performing a write
operation, because the verify operation includes the write medium operation
if needed.
One fear is clear. If nothing is done, over jealous test engineers are likely
to extend their vision of the cache to include the sector write buffer that
is part of the hardware that actually records data on the medium.
Warning: This comment is the result of a very preliminary review by Western
Digital engineers. The Western Digital review of SBC-3 r35j is ongoing, and
more issues seem likely to be unearthed. Due to the gravity of this issue
Western Digital concluded that prompt disclosure would best serve the
interests of T10 and the industry.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Ralph.Weber at wdc.com  Mon Sep 30 08:47:03 2013
From: Ralph.Weber at wdc.com (Ralph Weber)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:47:03 +0000
Subject: New SPC-4 Letter Ballot documents
Message-ID: <mailman.453.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309303_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

In honor of this afternoon's conference call, new SPC-4 letter ballot
documents are being delivered to the T10 website.
New resolution PDFs are available now:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r8.pdf [primary document]
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=13-070r2.pdf [supplementary document]
The agenda for today's call appears on page 4 of 12-311r8.pdf.
Instructions for using the various PDF files can be found on pages 1 and 2 of
12-311r8.pdf.
For those who prefer to pull an FDF into SPC-4 r36, that file is already
uploaded too.
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=12-311r8.fdf
Work is in progress to upload the SPC-4 companion for the above-named files,
which will be SPC-4 r36j. When the upload succeeds, the PDF will be
accessible as:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r36j.pdf<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bi
n/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r36i.pdf>
SPC-4 r36j should be available by 1 pm CDT.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Elliott at hp.com  Mon Sep 30 08:49:26 2013
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:49:26 +0000
Subject: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
Message-ID: <mailman.454.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309304_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Prompted by Ralph's comment about the consistency with write operations
paragraph, I think that paragraph:
For each LBA accessed by a write operation:
		1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for
that LBA than the medium, then the device
server shall:
				A) perform a write cache operation for that
LBA to update the logical block data in the cache;
				B) invalidate that LBA in the cache and
perform a write medium operation for that LBA; or
				C) perform a write cache operation for that
LBA to update the logical block data in the cache and
perform a write medium operation for that LBA.
is missing the following:
				or
				2) perform a write medium operation for that
LBA.
As written, it only discusses the cache hit case; the cache miss case is
missing.
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Elliott,
Robert (Server Storage)
Sent: Monday, 30 September, 2013 10:04 AM
To: Ralph Weber; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Friday, 27 September, 2013 3:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: 4.15 specs for read operation are unacceptable in SBC-3 r35j
Based on a preliminary review, Western Digital engineers have concerns about
the two paragraphs in 4.15 of SBC-3 r35j that begin as follows:
  *   For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify
operation:
  *   For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
The initial concern was that some interpretations of the 'read operation that
is a verify operation' case prohibit the use of read-ahead for verify
operations.
At a minimum, the cited paragraphs need to be revised as follows to maintain
consistency throughout 4.15 (note, the write operation definition is included
to demonstrate the need for consistency).
For each LBA accessed by a write operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall:
A) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache;
B) invalidate that LBA in the cache and perform a write medium operation to
that LBA; or
C) perform a write cache operation to that LBA to update the logical block
data in the cache and perform a write medium operation to that LBA.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device server shall perform:
A) a read cache operation from that LBA; or
B) 2) the device server shall perform a read medium operation from that LBA.
RE: That wording for 1) B) would mean to read from medium even though there
is more recent data in cache, which is not correct. If there is more recent 
data in cache, it must be used.
For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for the LBA than the
medium, then the device server:
A) shall perform a write medium operation to that LBA;
B) 2) the device server may invalidate that LBA in the cache; and
C) 3) the device server shall perform a verify medium operation from that
LBA.
Unless the second level of list is applied to all three paragraphs, the use
of 'that LBA' is ambiguous vis a vis the if clause that establishes the
operative conditions.
RE: For 1)B), Step 2) is not prefaced by "if ... more recent" because step 1)
made the cache and medium identical. For step 1)C), the verify medium
operation is always eventually performed; it's not just if there was a cache
hit. The order is also very important here: 1) write to medium, 2) invalidate
if desired, 3) verify.	Running the verify before the data from cache has
made it to the medium would not be correct. "that LBA" refers to "For each
LBA" introducing the list.
Western Digital also is obliged to note that none of the three cited
paragraphs cover the case where the cache fails to contain more recent
logical block data for 'that LBA' despite the fact that the presence of a
list based on this condition implies that such coverage ought to be present
(i.e., the if clause could equally well be folded into the list introduction
statement).
RE: That is not a problem unless the "if a cache contains more recent"
preface applies to more list items than it should.
To push the envelope a bit farther, some Western Digital reviewers suggested
that the specific case of a 'read operation that is a verify operation' could
be more fully stated as follows.
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is a verify operation, the
device server shall perform a read cache operation only if:
a) the logical block data in the cache for that LBA is the result of a read
medium operation; and
b) no subsequent write operation has been processed for that LBA.
RE: It doesn't matter how the cache got the data.  If there is more recent
data in the cache, all verify operations need to force that data to media
before performing the verify medium operation.
Warning: This comment is the result of a very preliminary review by Western
Digital engineers. The Western Digital review of SBC-3 r35j is ongoing, and
more issues seem likely to be unearthed. Due to the gravity of this issue
Western Digital concluded that prompt disclosure would best serve the
interests of T10 and the industry.
All the best,
.Ralph


From Elliott at hp.com  Mon Sep 30 08:57:04 2013
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:57:04 +0000
Subject: VERIFY & how the data got into the cache
Message-ID: <mailman.455.1441607390.22530.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1309305_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

The blue text is your proposed text, not the sbc3r35j text.  sbc3r35j does
not specify "read cache operation" for verify; it specifies "write medium
operation."
sbc3r35j:
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is not a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for that LBA than the
medium, then the device
server shall perform a read cache operation from that LBA; or
2) the device server shall perform a read medium operation from that LBA.
For each LBA accessed by read operation that is a verify operation:
1) if a cache contains more recent logical block data for the LBA than the
medium, then the device
server shall perform a write medium operation to that LBA;
2) the device server may invalidate that LBA in the cache; and
3) the device server shall perform a verify medium operation from that LBA.
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Monday, 30 September, 2013 10:34 AM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: VERIFY & how the data got into the cache
Unless I misheard them, WD engineers beg to differ with the following
comments in the "4.15 specs for read operation" thread:
<<begin quote>>
For each LBA accessed by a read operation that is a verify operation, the
device server shall perform a read cache operation only if:
a) the logical block data in the cache for that LBA is the result of a read
medium operation; and
b) no subsequent write operation has been processed for that LBA.
RE: It doesn't matter how the cache got the data.  If there is more recent
data in the cache, all verify operations need to force that data to media
before performing the verify medium operation.
<<end quote>>
How the data got into the cache very much matters (or so my experts tell me).
For this reason, WD engineering sees the current 4.15 requirements as being
fixated on the wrong thing.
VERIFY commands are required to use data that is read from the medium. If the
cache contains data that is newer then:
  1.  that data must be written to the medium,
  2.  the cache must be invalidated, and
  3.  the data must be read from the medium (and stored in cache if so
desired).
Any specification that says otherwise is misleading the reader.
It is not acceptable to write the newer cache data to the medium and then use
the cache contents without first reading the medium, unless the goal of the
letter ballot changes is to negate the first sentence in the SBC-2 definition
of VERIFY ... to whit:
"The VERIFY (10) command (see table 53) requests that the device server
verify the specified logical block(s) on the medium."
Furthermore, the "newer data in cache" issue should be covered by b) in the
WD proposed wording.
All the best,
.Ralph