SBC 3r21 Verification of a table in the spec

John Osterlund j.osterlund at sisa.samsung.com
Wed May 19 15:15:05 PDT 2010


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "John Osterlund" <j.osterlund at sisa.samsung.com>
*
Scott,
In point 2 from previous email I meant to say "device servers" instead
of "app clients".
-John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Osterlund 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:55 PM
To: 'scott taggart'; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: SBC 3r21 Verification of a table in the spec
Scott,
You may want to wait for others to chime in who are most familiar, but
below is my brief input:
1. BTW - First I should mention that there is are errors in the table
with VRPROTECT = 011b(3), 010h(2), and 001h(1) but it does not address
your question.	Regardless, you should see T10 proposal 10-137r0
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=10-137r0.pdf which points out 3
places where there are errors concerning Protection Type 3 and the ATO
bit.
(NOTE : the proposal references SBC3r22 in which the table is now 87)
2. The VRPROTECT tables (SBC3r21) 76h, 77h, and 78h all have the
consistency you are expecting, but the table 79h is unique in that it
addresses the initiators intent to perform a "byte by byte" check of all
fields and generate appropriate sense info depending on which field
miscompares (though App tag being a special case since app clients may
change it in certain circumstances)
John Osterlund
HDD Sr. Applications Engineer.
Samsung Information Systems America (SISA)
75 W. Plumeria Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
Office: 408 544 5774
Mobile: 408 234 1795
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of scott
taggart
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:00 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: SBC 3r21 Verification of a table in the spec
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* scott taggart <taggart at taggarts.org>
*
Hi,
I am looking at table 79 of SBC3r21 and was hoping someone could verify 
that the VRPROTECT description for values 011 and 100 are correct (the 
verify command) are correct.  Specifically, value 011 (0x03) is 
inconsistent with all the other xxProtect values for read. write, etc. 
commands in the spec.  Fro the commands other than verify, 011 is used
to 
disable all T10 tag fields.  Why is it different for the verify command?
Thanks,
Scott
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
*
* 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