Ralph Weber ralphoweber at CompuServe.COM
Mon Oct 2 20:34:08 PDT 2000

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <ralphoweber at compuserve.com>
The work on 00-267 and 00-269 removing the encryption
identification field is based on a decision of the working
group in response to comment Seagate 22 (among others).
I view this message as a request for reconsideration
by the working group.



Gene.Milligan at seagate.com wrote:

> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
> *
> The CAP minutes state: <<The encryption identification field in the
> variable length CDB was changed to
> reserved because no form of encryption is defined.>>
>      Some OSD participants are working on encryption definitions. I think
> for now the byte should be changed to reserved for encryption rather than
> just reserved. It may turn out that one byte is not sufficient in which
> case it would then be appropriate to change it, or a portion of it, from
> reserved for encryption to reserved.
> Gene

* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org

More information about the T10 mailing list