Fuji Email Voting Notice for NLJA issue

Tokumitsu Kenji kenji-tokumitsu at hlds.co.jp
Sun Jul 24 21:42:34 PDT 2005


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Tokumitsu Kenji" <kenji-tokumitsu at hlds.co.jp>
*
Dear Katata-san,

The following is the opinion from Hitachi.

"Option A"

Regards,
Kenji Tokumitsu 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:41 PM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Cc: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Fuji Email Voting Notice for NLJA issue


Hi all,

This is Fuji Email Voting notice about NLJA issue that is discussed in July
meeting.
I apologize the delay of this notice. This should be sent at July 13th. But
Kohda and I could not access our office Email system from USA by some
technical problem. So I send this now in Japan.

I have changed the Due date because delay of this notice.
I also attached DOC file that has same content. It may be easy to read.

Please send any comment or question to Fuji reflector.

Best regards,

Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.

---- Voting Notice ----
Comment for Dual layer model section:

Host application people are confused by the current Fuji description.
When no more LJ is available (no recordable area on layer 0 in an RZone),
NLJA (Next Layer Jump Address) field of RTI (Read Track Information) command
reports zero. Host does not understand how to detect the end address of user
data recordable area using the NLJA field.
In the July Mt. Fuji discussion, there were two options for Fuji members to
solve this confusion.

Option A: Keep current Fuji description

Host software should use ordinary sequential recording method to calculate
the end address of recordable area using the number of free blocks
information and NWA information of RTI command. In case of ordinary
sequential recording (CD-R, DVD-R Single Layer), the end address of the
recordable area is calculated by NWA + number of free blocks - 1.

Solution for Option A:

Add an explanation to clarify this method for Layer Jump recording model.
Keep the current definition of the NLJA field of RTI command and keep the
current model section.

Option B: Change the definition of the NLJA field of RTI command

The definition of the NLJA field of RTI command should be changed to show
the end address of the user data recordable area in an RZone only when no
more LJ is available.

Solution for Option B:

Change the definition of the NLJA field of RTI command.
Change the part that relates to the field in the model section.
Add the explanation of the method to detect the condition that no more layer
jump is possible. (NLJA field does not report this condition when option B
is adopted.)

Action Item:

We need opinions from ISVs and other members. Chairman asks this issue via
Fuji/T10 reflector. Simple majority will be taken to determine option A or
option B.
If the option B is selected, chairman will call the August meeting (it may
be in Japan). Ai san of Panasonic will make modification proposal for
Command section and he will make a brief modification proposal for DVD-R
Dual Layer model section.

Due date:

Send this issue by the Thursday night 15 July 2005. (Japan) Email voting
period is 2 weeks. = ends on 29 July, 2005 One vote per one entity.
Simple majority is used.
Only the vote for option A or vote for option B are counted. Other voting
and abstain are not counted at all. No-response is regarded as abstain.

Comments in the July Mt. Fuji meeting:

Direct address information of the end address of recordable area is better
method than the indirect address information calculated from number of free
blocks and NWA.

The confusion is not caused by a technical problem. Host software can use
current RTI command to detect the end address of recordable area on the
Layer 1.

Several host software vendors have released their products on the market.
At least one drive vendor has released its products on the market.
Technical change may not be acceptable for them.

September MMC WG is the target date to submit the final Fuji Specification
document to MMC Standard. The technical changes may cause schedule delay.

------------------------
(See attached file: Comment for Dual layer model section_2.doc)



*
* 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