[T10] T10 and T13: Repurposing Depopulation

Joe Breher Joe.Breher at wdc.com
Mon Nov 21 08:34:24 PST 2016

T10 has accepted 16-273r1 for inclusion into SBC-4.
T13 is diligently working towards acceptance of f16123 into ACS-4.

There was a joint T10/T13 webex on Friday, discussing f16123r10. I am hoping to resolve all remaining issues in order to have a clean doc for the Dec T13 F2F. In the webex, we resolved all issues save for five of them. I would like to discuss resolution here in this reflector venue.

f16123r10-am is attached to this email. The recent comments are embedded within this file. The five remaining comments are represented within the file by virtue of being the five comments that have not been ‘checked’.

A summary:

- 4.99.2 - Need to extend notification mechanism to NCQ - model on Device Statistic polling
Joe to work up proposed resolution

- 6 - Coordinate clause 6 material with f16159 (Curtis Stevens)
Joe to work with Curtis to coordinate

- - Intro text looks like redundant requirement
I think it was Mr Marks that had me add preface to REQUESTED MAX LBA field - describing what it is before defining requirements:

The REQUESTED MAX LBA field specifies:

a)the native max address; and
b)the accessible max address.
The following paragraph defines the requirements:

A value of zero specifies that the device shall choose a single value for the native max address and the accessible max address. A non-zero value specifies that the device shall:

a)set the native max address and the accessible max address to the specified value; or
b)return command aborted with the sense key set to ILLEGAL REQUEST and the additional sense code set to INVALID FIELD IN CDB, and not change the native max address or the accessible max address.
There has been a request to strike the prefatory description. I don’t care one way or the other. Shall we?

- 7.101.5 - Statement that errors during processing of REMOVE ELEMENT AND TRUNCATE may lead to MEDIUM FORMAT CORRUPTED may be redundant. Also is not in T10 version.
If the processing of this command encounters an error that leaves the media in a vendor specific condition in which the device server may not be able to perform logical block access commands, then the device shall return command aborted, with the sense key set to MEDIUM ERROR and the additional sense code set to MEDIUM FORMAT CORRUPTED.
Should this be stricken?
Should it be added to T10? (new proposal required, or add to Data Preserving Depopulation).
Can this be addressed by special attention within f16159?

- 7.101.5 - change ‘may not’ to ‘may or may not’?
Underlined in above issue’s quoted paragraph.
Was advocated on call.
I thought we did not allow ‘may or may not’ as a policy matter?

It would be great if we could have these issues largely settled before Dec T13 plenary. I’ll have sample text for the first two issues shortly. In the meantime, reflector discussion on the latter three items would be appreciated.

Thanks -

Joe Breher
Storage Architecture Technologist
Standards Setting Organization
San Jose Research Center
Western Digital
+1 (478) 2-Breher
+1 (478) 227-3437

[cid:8447b288-5686-45b1-9b1e-9a77d7f9b5a1 at namprd04.prod.outlook.com]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20161121/fed6d09c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WDC_Logo_email.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6257 bytes
Desc: WDC_Logo_email.png
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20161121/fed6d09c/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: f16123r10-am.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 441618 bytes
Desc: f16123r10-am.pdf
URL: <http://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/attachments/20161121/fed6d09c/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the T10 mailing list