Fuji Email Voting Notice for NLJA issue

Takaharu Ai ai.takaharu at jp.panasonic.com
Tue Jul 26 17:31:03 PDT 2005

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Takaharu Ai <ai.takaharu at jp.panasonic.com>
Hello Katata-san,

We Panasonic vote "Option B" as one of the application vendors.

Takaharu Ai
Panasonic AVC Networks Company
Osaka, Japan

---------------- Start of the original message ----------------
>From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
>To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
>Cc: t10 at t10.org
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:40:45 +0900
>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
> ---- 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)

----------------- 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