Posted PDF version: SATA AN addendum, draft

[keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
I post PDF version on ftp.
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Proposal/Oct07/Microsoft
 Mt Fuji proposal - SATA AN for MMC - Definiton and Appendix - 1.pdf
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
David Burg <daviburg at windows.microsoft.com>@avc-pioneer.com on 2007/10/02
08:10:10
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B:	  owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B:  "mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com" <mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com>
cc:
bcc:
$B7oL>(B:  RE: SATA AN addendum, draft
Hi Katata-san,
1. PDF version of proposal
Please find the PDF version attached, compressed in a zip archive.
2. Not voted item
There might be some misunderstanding. It was Microsoft's initial proposal to
make the use of Asynchronous Notification mandatory for optical devices on
SATA.
Hence the voted item might have mismatched the proposal if Pioneer understood
the voting item differently.
Notice that this requirement is specific to optical devices as probably the
most
popular PC device with removable media. For these removable media devices
also
the implementation details of the Asynchronous Notification can be specified
-
while for other type of devices it might not be clear what Asynchronous
Notification would be used for. Hence we believe the requirement belongs to
the
SFF specification, while other SATA devices might not have use of
Asynchronous
Notification thus it should remain optional for other SATA devices.
Does this make sense?
Best regards,
David Burg.
<Mt Fuji proposal - SATA AN for MMC - Definiton and Appendix - 1.zip>
-----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: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:02 PM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Subject: Re: SATA AN addendum, draft
Hi David,
I have two items to consult with you.
1. PDF version of proposal
My PC software (MS-Word) may not show your DOCX correctly. Could you prepare
PDF
version?
2. Not voted item
We have never discussed about following sentence of your document.
------
B-13 Asynchronous Notification
Peripheral Device Type 5 Logical unit using Serial ATA Revision 2.5 or later
compliant to this SFF pecification shall implement the SATA Asynchronous
Notification. In other words, IDENTIFY PACKET DEVICE information Word 78 bit
5
shall be set to 1 to indicate the support of Asynchronous Notification. See
Serial ATA specification for further details about IDENTIFY PACKET DEVICE
command.
------
 According to "Serial ATA Revision 2.6 15-February-2007" Asynchronous
Notification is optional. So is this new voting item? Then I will not include
all of "Asynchronous Notification" into the next Fuji revision.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
David Burg <daviburg at windows.microsoft.com>@avc-pioneer.com on 2007/10/01
11:51:14
mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com$B$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(B
$BAw?.<T(B:	  owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
$B08 at h(B:  "mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com" <mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com>
cc:
bcc:
$B7oL>(B:  SATA AN addendum, draft
Dear all,
I have quickly put together the definition and appendix requested by the Fuji
committee to Microsoft. The examples at the end while helpful might be
currently
a little difficult to read. I$B!G(Bll work on an easier to read revision as
time
permits.
Best regards,
David Burg.
<Mt Fuji proposal - SATA AN for MMC - Definiton and Appendix - 1.docx>
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org