Comments about "host responsibility"

David Burg dburg at
Fri Jan 28 00:30:24 PST 2005

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "David Burg" <dburg at>
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
Im Stoeckmaedle 18    fax:   +49 (0)7248 928 299
76307 Karlsbad        email: dburg at

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mtfuji5 at [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at]
On Behalf Of keiji_katata at
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 3:47 AM
To: mtfuji5 at
Cc: T10 at
Subject: Comments about "host responsibility"

Hi all,

My wording "host responsibility" is not correct. I agree this comment.

I could talk about dual-r related things with many attendees of MMC, Fuji
meeting. Then I got several comments about my wording that I used in
meeting "host responsibility" after meeting. Many people said that there is
possibility that specific application software needs to consider this "host
responsibility", but it is not generic PC implementation. I agree this

Actually generic data writing software does not use multiple of Open Tracks
/ RZones. Then no one was scared by the "host responsibility". It should be
"specific application responsibility". Only CE DVD Video format real-time
recorder application may have multiple of Open Tracks / RZones, must to
take care about such "specific application responsibility". I agree this

Actually I talked this fact in DVD Forum meeting, but I forgot to explain
this in Jan meeting at all.
So there is only one issue for PC application software that is Layer Jump.
But still this issue is not generic issue. It is because that only the
application software that expects ROM compatibility needs to consider this
issue. Such is session at once recording application. User expects ROM
readability when data is going to be written by SAO. Other implementation
needs not care about Layer Jump, because it does not use SAO.
And if the SAO application uses AP#1:LBA S+16 and/or AP#2:LBA S+256,
remapping may not be necessary. For UDF compliance, it is necessary. But
many actual implementations do not write second AVDP, do not read the
second AVDP in fact. So no market problem is assumed.  I agree this

Please understand that this is not issue of dual-r, this is issue of ROM
equipments. If unrecorded sectors remained at inner side of layer 1, the
dual-r disc causes unexpected result in among ROM equipments. Then this is
prohibited by physical specification.

Anyway, I will move the section " Recommendation for Dual layer
Incremental Recording mode" to section "4.17.14 DVD-Video compatibility
issues for DVD-R dual layer disc" with modification. And I will modify
section " Comparison chart among recording modes" to show this

Thank you for attending meeting and thank you for your participation.

Keiji Katata

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

More information about the T10 mailing list