Comments about "host responsibility"

David Burg dburg at nero.com
Fri Feb 18 16:11:38 PST 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "David Burg" <dburg at nero.com>
*
Dear Ai-san,

Well I am not the specialist about the risk of media with one layer recorded
more than the other, but the reasons why layer jump recording was invented
are valid whatever is the kind of application recording the media, isn't it?

What I heard in last OSTA UDF meeting is that there is a small percentage of
badly written ROM firmware who will hit-to-damage the outside or inside
range with the laser head once they 'run on ice' for trying to find a track
on the layer which is not as recorded as the other one.

Best regards,

David Burg

----------------------------------------------------------------
David Burg
Software Development,
InCD and Low Level Drivers Project Leader

Nero AG               phone: +49 (0)7248 911 862 (room line) Internal VoIP
-363
Im Stoeckmaedle 18    fax:   +49 (0)7248 928 299
76307 Karlsbad        email: dburg at nero.com
Germany               http://www.nero.com
----------------------------------------------------------------



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com]
On Behalf Of Takaharu Ai
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 4:15 PM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Cc: T10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: Comments about "host responsibility"

Hello David,

One question.
Why do you think it is risky if the media is inserted by the user in a
legacy reader?

For me, this situation looks very similar to the single layer case
happened in the current market. Until the disc or the border is closed,
the recorded single layer DVD-R is not readable by ROM device. Only the
difference between single layer and dual layer is whether the
Multi-Border is supported or not. Is this the reason?


Takaharu Ai
ODSDC
Panasonic AVC Networks Company
Matsushita/Panasonic
Osaka, Japan


---------------- Start of the original message ----------------
>From: "David Burg" <dburg at nero.com>
>To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
>Cc: T10 at t10.org
>Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:00:46 +0100
>Subject: RE: Comments about "host responsibility"
>
> Dear Keiji,
>  
> I am thinking of a packet-writing application such as InCD or Drag2Disc.
> Usually such application uses VAT to record write-once media. With Dual-R,
> it seems as you said possible with incremental recording mode. However
this
> is risky if the media is inserted by the user in a legacy reader. So the
> layer jump is interesting. But VAT as existing today is not suitable for
> layer jump because of its recognition sequence which seeks the virtual
> allocation table at the end of the recorded area.
> 
> I used the term 'incremental' per opposition to SAO and per opposition to
> overwriting. I'm sorry for the confusion with Incremental Recording mode
> which is not current when Layer Jump recording mode is used as I see in
> Dual-R SWG meeting minutes.
> 
> I am unsure if I fully understand what you wrote about VAT implementation
> using SAO writing. Did you meant such application will be able to write to
> Dual-R media using Layer Jump?
> 
> Also, is there actually a work group working on the issue of packet
writing
> to Dual-R?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David Burg
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> David Burg
> 
> Nero AG
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com]
> On Behalf Of keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:52 AM
> To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
> Cc: T10 at t10.org
> Subject: RE: Comments about "host responsibility"
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Yes, any implementation that uses Layer Jump needs to take care Layer
Jump.
> 
> People think that UDF VAT may be applied to Incremental Recording mode of
> Dual-R, may not be applied to Layer Jump recording mode.
> Some UDF VAT implementation use SAO writing actually. In this case, the
> implementation provides data append capability after Border closing (to be
> readable by ROM device that support reading of dual-r multi-border).
> 
> I may not understand your case. "incremental packet recording on layer
jump
> DL DVD-R", what kind of application or implementation do you assume?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Keiji Katata
> PIONEER CORP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "David Burg" <dburg at nero.com>@avc-pioneer.com on 2005/01/28 17:30:24
> 
> mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(J
> 
> $BAw?.<T(J:     owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $B08 at h(J:  <mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com>
> cc:    <T10 at t10.org>
> bcc:
> $B7oL>(J:  RE: Comments about "host responsibility"
> 
> Dear Katata-san,
> 
> What about UDF 'VAT' recording on Dual Layer DVD-R, or more generally,
> incremental packet recording on layer jump DL DVD-R?
> 
> I think this is also an issue, additionally to the SAO issue you
mentioned.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David Burg
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> David Burg
> Software Development,
> InCD and Low Level Drivers Project Leader
> 
> Nero AG               phone: +49 (0)7248 911 862 (room line) Internal VoIP
> -363
> Im Stoeckmaedle 18    fax:   +49 (0)7248 928 299
> 76307 Karlsbad        email: dburg at nero.com
> Germany               http://www.nero.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

----------------- End of the original message -----------------





*
* 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