From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Jun  1 12:41:19 2011
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:41:19 -0500
Subject: Reminder: SAS PHY WG conference call, 10:00 am CDT, June 2, 2011
Message-ID: <mailman.308.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106010_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
AC coupling capacitor requirements
 SAS-3 AC coupling requirements
 SSC requirements: How much SSC is needed?
Connector updates
Channel analysis updates
SAS-3 Electrical Spec
(11-221r2<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-221r2.pdf&gt;)
[Witt]
Additional items
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Webex information:
Topic: SAS PHY WG
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 826 515 680
Meeting Password: newsas
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&RT
=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: newsas
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&OR
T=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&
ST=1&SHA2=SVyTzTdCGzSIxsgaH07Ohz1skP261RTOA-QjHZRNW6c=&RT=MiM3
WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time
you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by
clicking this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From Mark.Evans at wdc.com  Wed Jun  1 15:01:28 2011
From: Mark.Evans at wdc.com (Mark Evans)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:01:28 -0700
Subject: SBC-3 rev 27
Message-ID: <mailman.309.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106011_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hello all,
SBC-3 draft revision 27 has been posted and is available at
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r27.pdf.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Thu Jun  2 14:48:55 2011
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:48:55 -0600
Subject: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r5)
Message-ID: <mailman.310.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
A new version of the transmitter training proposal (11-036r5) has been
posted. It includes the following changes. 
Revision 5 - Accepted the markups indicating changes from revision 4 that
were made to the new sections.
Added the following:
a) made editorial fixes requested on the 5/25 transmitter training conference
call;
b) added a section that describes the phy's transmitter initial conditions;
c) added a cancel message from PTT_R to the PTT_GCx state machines that is
sent when an Error Response TTIU is received;
d) added the sending of a cancel message from PTT_R to the PTT_SCx state
machines if an unsupported or reserved value is received in the Training
Control word;
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Document Administrator
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:00 PM
To: Penokie, George
Subject: Re: RE: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r5)
2011/06/01 16:00:26 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-036r5.pdf
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
should you need further assistance.
"Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
> From: "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> To: T10 Document Administrator <docs at t10.org>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:53:16 -0600
> Subject: RE: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r5)
> Extracted-To: AutoPost
> 
> 
> 
> Bye for now, 
> George Penokie
>  
> LSI Corporation 
> 3033 41st St. NW 
> Suite 100 
> Rochester, MN 55901
>  
> 507-328-9017 
> george.penokie at lsi.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Document Administrator
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 4:52 PM
> To: Penokie, George
> Subject: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r5)
> 
> 2011/06/01 15:52:27 (AD v1.36)
> 
> ## Your T10 document number request has been approved and
> ## the following document number was assigned:
> 
>   Document Number: T10/11-036r5
>	Upload Code: AC_00638gvAtO5its3 (Do not delete or change this line.)
>     Document_Date: 2011/06/01
>   Document_Author: George Penokie
>    Document_Title: SPL-2: Transmitter Training
>    Meeting_Agenda: SAS_Prot - Serial Attached SCSI Protocol
>   Meeting_Agenda2: none
> Document_Comments: <none>
>      Other_Number: <none>
> 
> ## POSTING YOUR DOCUMENT USING A WEB BROWSER
> ## -----------------------------------------
> ##
> ## You may upload the file(s) for your document using
> ## the form at:
> ##
> ##   http://www.t10.org/fupload.htm
> ##
> ##
> ## POSTING YOUR DOCUMENT BY REPLYING TO THIS EMAIL
> ## -----------------------------------------------
> ##
> ## Please reply to this email and attach your document 
> ## to the reply email.  Please attach both the source 
> ## file and a PDF file made from your source file.  
> ## The source file may be ZIP'd, but the PDF file must
> ## not be ZIP'd.
> ##
> ## Please generate your PDF files for posting to be 
> ## compatible with Acrobat 5.x (PDF 1.4). (This
> ## parameter is set in Distiller, Settings, Job 
> ## Options, Compatibility.)
> ##
> ## If you do not attach a PDF file, your upload will be
> ## forwarded to an administrator.  This will delay your
> ## posting until the administrator can make the PDF file
> ## for you.
> ##
> ## While you are not required to provide the source file, 
> ## it is strongly recommended that you do so. The source
> ## file will be archived in case the PDF file must be 
> ## re-created.
> ##
> ## It is critical that your reply email include the above
> ## Upload Code.  Without it, your posting cannot be
> ## processed. The filenames you use for your attachment(s)
> ## are not important as long as the extensions are correct.
> ##
> ##
> ## POSTING NON-PDF DOCUMENTS
> ## -------------------------
> ##
> ## A PDF file is necessary for the T10 mailings. You may
> ## also post one or more non-PDF files on the T10 web site
> ## as long as the extensions are all unique. These files 
> ## are not included in the T10 mailings, but are made
> ## available for downloading.
> ##
> ## To post additional files on the T10 web site, edit the
> ## Post File line to add the file extension(s) that you 
> ## want posted. Then attach file(s) with matching 
> ## extensions to your email.
> ##
> ## Example: To post an Excel spreadsheet in addition to 
> ## a PDF file, edit the line to read: Post_File: PDF XLS
> ##
> Post_File: PDF
> ##
> ## Any files you attach that do not match an extension 
> ## listed on the Post File line will be assumed to be a 
> ## source file and will be archived but not posted.
> ##
> ##
> ##  CHANGING YOUR MIND
> ##  ------------------
> ##
> ## If you wish to cancel this document number, reply to 
> ## this email without any attachments and edit the 
> ## following line to change the word no to yes:
> ##
>    Cancel_Document_Number: no
> ##
> ## Once you post a document, you cannot cancel it.
> ##
> ##
> ##  EDITING DOCUMENT INFORMATION
> ##  ----------------------------
> ##
> ## If one of the above fields Document Date, Document
> ## Title, Document Author, Document Title, Meeting 
> ## Agenda, Comments, and Other Number is no longer 
> ## accurate, you may edit it as necessary.
> ##
> ## Be careful if you edit the Meeting Agenda field;
> ## only the first word is used.  It must be one of 
> ## the words available on the Add_to_agenda pull-down
> ## from the web site.  These words may change 
> ## periodically and as of June 2002 they were: ADI, 
> ## CAP, MMC, PIP, SAS_Prot, SAS_PHY, SBP, SPI, SRP, 
> ## SSC, SSM, and T10.
> ##
> ##
> ## COPYRIGHT POLICY
> ## ----------------
> ##
> ## Do not submit documents containing a copyright 
> ## statement unless you add the following statement:
> ##
> ##	Permission is granted to members of INCITS, its 
> ##	technical committees and their associated task 
> ##	groups to reproduce this document for the purposes
> ##	of INCITS standardization activities, provided
> ##	this notice is included.
> ##
> ## If you upload a copyrighted document, with or without
> ## this statement, it will be assumed implicitly that you
> ## and your organization have given the above permission.
> ##
> ##
> ## APPROPRIATE CONTENT
> ## -------------------
> ##
> ## Do not upload inappropriate material.  If you do, your
> ## files will be removed and your posting privileges will
> ## be revoked.
> 
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\11-036r5.pdf"
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From dgilbert at interlog.com  Thu Jun  2 14:40:21 2011
From: dgilbert at interlog.com (Douglas Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:40:21 -0400
Subject: spl-2: shadowy zoning enabled
Message-ID: <mailman.311.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
*
In spl2r01.pdf in the section on the SMP DISCOVER function
(9.4.3.10) is the following sentence (page 582, middle):
"The SHADOW ZONING ENABLED bit contains the shadow value of
the ZONING ENABLED bit (see 4.9.3.1)."
That would imply that table 231 (DISCOVER response) should
define that bit. It doesn't. The current and former technical
editors of that document do not deny this is a flaw (and
Rob suggests byte 104 bit 0). The current editor wants a
proposal to fix it.
I'm not aware whether someone without standing at t10 can
make a proposal. That seems pretty pointless anyway. Couldn't
it just be an agenda item for the next SAS protocol meeting
to fix?
BTW sas2r16.pdf and spl-r07.pdf contain the same oversight.
Doug Gilbert
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From tru.nguyen at sisa.samsung.com  Thu Jun  2 17:53:30 2011
From: tru.nguyen at sisa.samsung.com (Truong Nguyen - SISA)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:53:30 -0700
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.312.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106022_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor
subclause 5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT
CDB field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp  Thu Jun  2 23:38:36 2011
From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp (keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:38:36 +0900
Subject: Posted: draft May meeting minutes
Message-ID: <mailman.313.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
I posted April meeting minutes and draft May meeting minutes on ftp.
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Minutes
 DraftMinMay11.pdf
 MinApr11.pdf
And I also posted a comparison chart for ZPready state discussion in May
meeting.
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Proposal/Jun11/Comparison chart20110603.doc
I think ATA Power management model discussion should be separated from
ZPready
state discussion. It may be an	implementation matter. Because there is no
standards that describe the relationship of them.
Could you please check your implementation of the ATA Power management
commands
and let me know your opinion.
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From Mark.Evans at wdc.com  Fri Jun  3 08:56:05 2011
From: Mark.Evans at wdc.com (Mark Evans)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:56:05 -0700
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.314.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106031_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote the
definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI bit
its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except the
IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure you
will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun  4 23:00:55 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:00:55 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2011/05/29
Message-ID: <mailman.315.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SPL-2: Transmitter Training
(by: George Penokie)
T10/11-036r5   Uploaded: 2011/06/01   1198762 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-036r5.pdf
Foxconn - Combo PCIe-SAS 3 Connector SI Data
(by: Fred Fons)
T10/11-198r2   Uploaded: 2011/06/03   543154 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-198r2.pdf
SOX - PQI and NVMe(r) Queuing Comparison
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/11-228r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/01   427900 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-228r1.pdf
SAS_PHY: SAS3 Specification using SAS3_EYEOPENING
(by: Mathieu Gagnon)
T10/11-234r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/02   279982 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-234r1.pdf
Minutes SMC May 09, 2011
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-236r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/01   36089 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-236r0.pdf
Minutes SSC4 WG May 10, 2011
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-237r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/01   53579 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-237r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group conference call May 26, 2011
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-262r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/02   23748 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-262r0.pdf
Minutes ADC-3 letter ballot resolution conference call 1, June 2011
(by: Curtis Ballard)
T10/11-263r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/03   27273 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-263r0.pdf
SAS 2-port HDD connector crosstalk port assignments
(by: Galen Fromm)
T10/11-266r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/02   252886 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-266r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Block Commands - 3 (SBC-3)
(Editor: Mark Evans)
 Rev: 27       Uploaded: 2011/06/01   1654863 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=sbc3r27.pdf
SAS Protocol Layer - 2 (SPL-2)
(Editor: George Penokie)
 Rev: 01       Uploaded: 2011/05/31   8248301 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spl2r01.pdf
(Report generated on 2011/06/05 at 00:00:55)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Tue Jun  7 08:17:46 2011
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:17:46 -0500
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.316.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106070_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to
trigger a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device has
to do to implement this take precedence over other bits that might specify
conflicting demands. However things that specify the required final format
(e.g., logical block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing defect lists are
included or not (e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST FORMAT, defect list
length) should still be obeyed. If an initialization pattern is specified,
that should be the pattern left on the media after the security initialize
is complete. The SI bit probably affects how defective areas (i.e., areas
excluded from the user data area) are treated, but should not cause the
device to ignore instructions about which areas are to be handled as
defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans <Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
>  Hi Truong,
>
>
>
> The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
> FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote
the
> definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
> discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
> definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
>
>
>
> What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, ?If the SI bit
> its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
>
>
>
> a)	   the FMTPINFO field;
>
> b)	  the FMTDATA bit;
>
> c)	   the CMPLST bit;
>
> d)	  the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
>
> e)	   all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except
> the IMMED bit; and
>
> f)	    any defect list data.
>
>
>
> Others may correct me if I?m wrong.  You know who you are, and I?m sure you
> will ? ha!
>
>
>
> Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
> questions that you have about this stuff.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Evans
> Western Digital Corporation
> 5863 Rue Ferrari
> San Jose, CA 95138
> Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of *Truong
> Nguyen - SISA
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
> *To:* t10 at t10.org
> *Subject:* Format Unit SI bit
>
>
>
> In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
> 5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
>
>
>
> "An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
> field."
>
>
>
> What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
>
>
>
> It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
>
>
>
> ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
>
>
>
> "Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
> precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
>
>
>
> I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Truong Nguyen
>
>
>
> Samsung Information Systems America
>


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Jun  7 09:01:56 2011
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:01:56 -0600
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.317.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106071_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

You are both right and wrong.
What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers specification. Is
some cases the intent may that the device be totally inoperable (think the
helicopter and all electronics need to be destroyed). In less radical
conditions the drive may come back usable with data scrubbed off.
At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as to how
scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left up to the
customers specification.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to trigger
a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device has to do to
implement this take precedence over other bits that might specify conflicting
demands. However things that specify the required final format (e.g., logical
block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing defect lists are included or not
(e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST FORMAT, defect list length) should still
be obeyed. If an initialization pattern is specified, that should be the
pattern left on the media after the security initialize is complete. The SI
bit probably affects how defective areas (i.e., areas excluded from the user
data area) are treated, but should not cause the device to ignore
instructions about which areas are to be handled as defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans
<Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote the
definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI bit
its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except the
IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure you
will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>
[mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From Mark.Evans at wdc.com  Tue Jun  7 10:39:25 2011
From: Mark.Evans at wdc.com (Mark Evans)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:39:25 -0700
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.318.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106072_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi George,
There are just too many "shalls" in the definition for the bit set to one
for this to be as open-ended as you describe:
a)	 ...the device server shall attempt to write the initialization
pattern to all areas of the medium including those that may have been
reassigned (i.e., are in a defect list)...;
b)	...An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT
UNIT CDB field...; and
c)	 ...the initialization pattern shall be written using a security
erasure write technique....
Though I'll admit that item (c) is certainly vendor specific, I don't see
where there is even a hint that the target device will end up being "totally
inoperable".
Gerry, I can see now that all of the information in the command and
parameter data could be used if the logical unit was to perform the security
initialize function and then finish with a normal format operation.  We
don't say this anyplace, but this condition could fall into George's list of
vendor specific behavior.
All of that written, I still think we need to clarify item (b).  I now think
that what was meant is:  "...the security initialize function shall take
precedence over any other function specified by the FORMAT UNIT command."
To me this means that you have to do the security initialize stuff first,
then whatever else you do is vendor specific.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
George
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
You are both right and wrong.
What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers specification.
Is some cases the intent may that the device be totally inoperable (think
the helicopter and all electronics need to be destroyed). In less radical
conditions the drive may come back usable with data scrubbed off. 
At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as to
how scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left up to
the customers specification.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie 
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901 
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com 
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry
Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to
trigger a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device has
to do to implement this take precedence over other bits that might specify
conflicting demands. However things that specify the required final format
(e.g., logical block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing defect lists are
included or not (e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST FORMAT, defect list
length) should still be obeyed. If an initialization pattern is specified,
that should be the pattern left on the media after the security initialize
is complete. The SI bit probably affects how defective areas (i.e., areas
excluded from the user data area) are treated, but should not cause the
device to ignore instructions about which areas are to be handled as
defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans <Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote the
definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI bit
its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except the
IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure you
will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com  Tue Jun  7 11:27:45 2011
From: jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com (Jon Haswell - SISA)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:27:45 -0700
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.319.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106073_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I would agree with your last comment, re needing to clarify (b). Wording
such as 'take precedence over'	is very ambiguous. To me 'taking
precedence over' implies it overrides other settings if they conflict,
but any conflict is vendor unique/unspecified so nobody can rely on what
will or will not be overridden. 
We are currently implementing it so we do the security initialize first
and then we implement everything else, we actually have no conflicts so
we implement every other function/feature requested after the initialize
is completed.
I would prefer to see some statement that is definitive such as, 'When
the SI bit is specified all other options are ignore' if that is really
what is intended. Or if not let's get specific as we do in other
commands/mode pages where we define what bits are honored/ignored where
we have multiple bits that conflict/interact.
Thanks
Jon Haswell
SSD Development
Office	408 544 5869
Cell	 408 472 2495
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Evans
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:39 AM
To: Penokie, George; Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
Hi George,
There are just too many "shalls" in the definition for the bit set to
one for this to be as open-ended as you describe:
a)     ...the device server shall attempt to write the initialization
pattern to all areas of the medium including those that may have been
reassigned (i.e., are in a defect list)...;
b)    ...An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other
FORMAT UNIT CDB field...; and
c)     ...the initialization pattern shall be written using a security
erasure write technique....
Though I'll admit that item (c) is certainly vendor specific, I don't
see where there is even a hint that the target device will end up being
"totally inoperable".
Gerry, I can see now that all of the information in the command and
parameter data could be used if the logical unit was to perform the
security initialize function and then finish with a normal format
operation.  We don't say this anyplace, but this condition could fall
into George's list of vendor specific behavior.
All of that written, I still think we need to clarify item (b).  I now
think that what was meant is:  "...the security initialize function
shall take precedence over any other function specified by the FORMAT
UNIT command."	To me this means that you have to do the security
initialize stuff first, then whatever else you do is vendor specific.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
George
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
You are both right and wrong.
What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers
specification. Is some cases the intent may that the device be totally
inoperable (think the helicopter and all electronics need to be
destroyed). In less radical conditions the drive may come back usable
with data scrubbed off. 
At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as
to how scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left
up to the customers specification.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie 
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901 
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com 
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry
Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to
trigger a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device
has to do to implement this take precedence over other bits that might
specify conflicting demands. However things that specify the required
final format (e.g., logical block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing
defect lists are included or not (e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST
FORMAT, defect list length) should still be obeyed. If an initialization
pattern is specified, that should be the pattern left on the media after
the security initialize is complete. The SI bit probably affects how
defective areas (i.e., areas excluded from the user data area) are
treated, but should not cause the device to ignore instructions about
which areas are to be handled as defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans <Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote
the definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result
of discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.
The definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI
bit its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except
the IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure
you will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor
subclause 5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT
CDB field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From Elliott at hp.com  Tue Jun  7 11:58:06 2011
From: Elliott at hp.com (Elliott, Robert (Server Storage))
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:58:06 +0000
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.320.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106074_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Now that the SANITIZE command has made it into the SBC-3 working draft
(sbc3r27), the FORMAT UNIT command's SI bit should be marked obsolete or
vendor-specific.
---
Rob Elliott    HP Server Storage
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Jon Haswell -
SISA
Sent: Tuesday, 07 June, 2011 1:28 PM
To: Mark Evans; Penokie, George; Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
I would agree with your last comment, re needing to clarify (b). Wording such
as 'take precedence over'  is very ambiguous. To me 'taking precedence over'
implies it overrides other settings if they conflict, but any conflict is
vendor unique/unspecified so nobody can rely on what will or will not be
overridden.
We are currently implementing it so we do the security initialize first and
then we implement everything else, we actually have no conflicts so we
implement every other function/feature requested after the initialize is
completed.
I would prefer to see some statement that is definitive such as, 'When the SI
bit is specified all other options are ignore' if that is really what is
intended. Or if not let's get specific as we do in other commands/mode pages
where we define what bits are honored/ignored where we have multiple bits
that conflict/interact.
Thanks
Jon Haswell
SSD Development
Office	408 544 5869
Cell	 408 472 2495
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Mark Evans
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:39 AM
To: Penokie, George; Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
Hi George,
There are just too many "shalls" in the definition for the bit set to one for
this to be as open-ended as you describe:
a)  ...the device server shall attempt to write the initialization pattern to
all areas of the medium including those that may have been reassigned (i.e.,
are in a defect list)...;
b)  ...An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT
CDB field...; and
c)  ...the initialization pattern shall be written using a security erasure
write technique....
Though I'll admit that item (c) is certainly vendor specific, I don't see
where there is even a hint that the target device will end up being "totally
inoperable".
Gerry, I can see now that all of the information in the command and parameter
data could be used if the logical unit was to perform the security initialize
function and then finish with a normal format operation.  We don't say this
anyplace, but this condition could fall into George's list of vendor specific
behavior.
All of that written, I still think we need to clarify item (b).  I now think
that what was meant is:  "...the security initialize function shall take
precedence over any other function specified by the FORMAT UNIT command."  To
me this means that you have to do the security initialize stuff first, then
whatever else you do is vendor specific.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
George
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
You are both right and wrong.
What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers specification. Is
some cases the intent may that the device be totally inoperable (think the
helicopter and all electronics need to be destroyed). In less radical
conditions the drive may come back usable with data scrubbed off.
At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as to how
scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left up to the
customers specification.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to trigger
a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device has to do to
implement this take precedence over other bits that might specify conflicting
demands. However things that specify the required final format (e.g., logical
block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing defect lists are included or not
(e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST FORMAT, defect list length) should still
be obeyed. If an initialization pattern is specified, that should be the
pattern left on the media after the security initialize is complete. The SI
bit probably affects how defective areas (i.e., areas excluded from the user
data area) are treated, but should not cause the device to ignore
instructions about which areas are to be handled as defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans
<Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote the
definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI bit
its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except the
IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure you
will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff.
Regards,
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>
[mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From gerry.houlder at seagate.com  Tue Jun  7 12:06:08 2011
From: gerry.houlder at seagate.com (Gerry Houlder)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:06:08 -0500
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.321.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106075_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

If you want a more precise definition of your sanitize process, consider
implementing the newly created SANITIZE command instead. This certainly
eliminates most of the uncertainty you are concerned about. The command can
be seen in SBC-3 rev. 27 or proposal 11-011 (latest revision). The hope is
that the features described in this command will meet the needs of everyone
planning to inplement a sanitize function instead of using the SI bit.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Haswell - SISA <
jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com> wrote:
> I would agree with your last comment, re needing to clarify (b). Wording
> such as ?take precedence over?  is very ambiguous. To me ?taking precedence
> over? implies it overrides other settings if they conflict, but any
conflict
> is vendor unique/unspecified so nobody can rely on what will or will not be
> overridden.
>
>
>
> We are currently implementing it so we do the security initialize first and
> then we implement everything else, we actually have no conflicts so we
> implement every other function/feature requested after the initialize is
> completed.
>
>
>
> I would prefer to see some statement that is definitive such as, ?When the
> SI bit is specified all other options are ignore? if that is really what is
> intended. Or if not let?s get specific as we do in other commands/mode
pages
> where we define what bits are honored/ignored where we have multiple bits
> that conflict/interact.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Jon Haswell
>
> SSD Development
>
> Office  408 544 5869
>
> Cell	   408 472 2495
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Evans
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:39 AM
> *To:* Penokie, George; Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
>
> *Cc:* Truong Nguyen - SISA
> *Subject:* RE: Format Unit SI bit
>
>
>
> Hi George,
>
>
>
> There are just too many ?shalls? in the definition for the bit set to one
> for this to be as open-ended as you describe:
>
>
>
> a)	 ?the device server shall attempt to write the initialization
> pattern to all areas of the medium including those that may have been
> reassigned (i.e., are in a defect list)?;
>
> b)	?An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT
> UNIT CDB field?; and
>
> c)	 ?the initialization pattern shall be written using a security
> erasure write technique?.
>
>
>
> Though I?ll admit that item (c) is certainly vendor specific, I don?t see
> where there is even a hint that the target device will end up being
?totally
> inoperable?.
>
>
>
> Gerry, I can see now that all of the information in the command and
> parameter data could be used if the logical unit was to perform the
security
> initialize function and then finish with a normal format operation.  We
> don?t say this anyplace, but this condition could fall into George?s list
of
> vendor specific behavior.
>
>
>
> All of that written, I still think we need to clarify item (b).  I now
> think that what was meant is:  ??the security initialize function shall
take
> precedence over any other function specified by the FORMAT UNIT command.?
> To me this means that you have to do the security initialize stuff first,
> then whatever else you do is vendor specific.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
> questions that you have about this stuff.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Evans
> Western Digital Corporation
> 5863 Rue Ferrari
> San Jose, CA 95138
> Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of
*Penokie,
> George
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:02 AM
> *To:* Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
> *Cc:* Truong Nguyen - SISA
> *Subject:* RE: Format Unit SI bit
>
>
>
> You are both right and wrong.
>
>
>
> What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers specification.
> Is some cases the intent may that the device be totally inoperable (think
> the helicopter and all electronics need to be destroyed). In less radical
> conditions the drive may come back usable with data scrubbed off.
>
>
>
> At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as to
> how scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left up to
> the customers specification.
>
>
>
> Bye for now,
> George Penokie
>
> LSI Corporation
> 3033 41st St. NW
> Suite 100
> Rochester, MN 55901
>
> 507-328-9017
> george.penokie at lsi.com
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of *Gerry
> Houlder
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
> *To:* T10 Reflector
> *Cc:* Truong Nguyen - SISA
> *Subject:* Re: Format Unit SI bit
>
>
>
> I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to
> trigger a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device
has
> to do to implement this take precedence over other bits that might specify
> conflicting demands. However things that specify the required final format
> (e.g., logical block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing defect lists are
> included or not (e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST FORMAT, defect list
> length) should still be obeyed. If an initialization pattern is specified,
> that should be the pattern left on the media after the security initialize
> is complete. The SI bit probably affects how defective areas (i.e., areas
> excluded from the user data area) are treated, but should not cause the
> device to ignore instructions about which areas are to be handled as
> defective areas.
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans <Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Truong,
>
>
>
> The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
> FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote
the
> definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result of
> discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.  The
> definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
>
>
>
> What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, ?If the SI bit
> its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
>
>
>
> a)	   the FMTPINFO field;
>
> b)	  the FMTDATA bit;
>
> c)	   the CMPLST bit;
>
> d)	  the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
>
> e)	   all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except
> the IMMED bit; and
>
> f)	    any defect list data.
>
>
>
> Others may correct me if I?m wrong.  You know who you are, and I?m sure you
> will ? ha!
>
>
>
> Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
> questions that you have about this stuff.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Evans
> Western Digital Corporation
> 5863 Rue Ferrari
> San Jose, CA 95138
> Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of *Truong
> Nguyen - SISA
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
> *To:* t10 at t10.org
> *Subject:* Format Unit SI bit
>
>
>
> In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor subclause
> 5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
>
>
>
> "An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT CDB
> field."
>
>
>
> What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
>
>
>
> It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
>
>
>
> ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
>
>
>
> "Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
> precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
>
>
>
> I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Truong Nguyen
>
>
>
> Samsung Information Systems America
>
>
>


From jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com  Tue Jun  7 12:40:55 2011
From: jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com (Jon Haswell - SISA)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:40:55 -0700
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
Message-ID: <mailman.322.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106076_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I agree - we just wanted to try and implement this legacy function in an
appropriate manner.  Looking forward to hopeful a day in the future when
the SI bit can be obsolete in favor of the sanitize command ...
Jon Haswell
SSD Development
Office	408 544 5869
Cell	 408 472 2495
From: Gerry Houlder [mailto:gerry.houlder at seagate.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:06 PM
To: Jon Haswell - SISA
Cc: T10 Reflector; Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
If you want a more precise definition of your sanitize process, consider
implementing the newly created SANITIZE command instead. This certainly
eliminates most of the uncertainty you are concerned about. The command
can be seen in SBC-3 rev. 27 or proposal 11-011 (latest revision). The
hope is that the features described in this command will meet the needs
of everyone planning to inplement a sanitize function instead of using
the SI bit.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jon Haswell - SISA
<jon.haswell at sisa.samsung.com> wrote:
I would agree with your last comment, re needing to clarify (b). Wording
such as 'take precedence over'	is very ambiguous. To me 'taking
precedence over' implies it overrides other settings if they conflict,
but any conflict is vendor unique/unspecified so nobody can rely on what
will or will not be overridden. 
We are currently implementing it so we do the security initialize first
and then we implement everything else, we actually have no conflicts so
we implement every other function/feature requested after the initialize
is completed.
I would prefer to see some statement that is definitive such as, 'When
the SI bit is specified all other options are ignore' if that is really
what is intended. Or if not let's get specific as we do in other
commands/mode pages where we define what bits are honored/ignored where
we have multiple bits that conflict/interact.
Thanks
Jon Haswell
SSD Development
Office	408 544 5869
Cell	 408 472 2495
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Evans
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:39 AM
To: Penokie, George; Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
Hi George,
There are just too many "shalls" in the definition for the bit set to
one for this to be as open-ended as you describe:
a)     ...the device server shall attempt to write the initialization
pattern to all areas of the medium including those that may have been
reassigned (i.e., are in a defect list)...;
b)    ...An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other
FORMAT UNIT CDB field...; and
c)     ...the initialization pattern shall be written using a security
erasure write technique....
Though I'll admit that item (c) is certainly vendor specific, I don't
see where there is even a hint that the target device will end up being
"totally inoperable".
Gerry, I can see now that all of the information in the command and
parameter data could be used if the logical unit was to perform the
security initialize function and then finish with a normal format
operation.  We don't say this anyplace, but this condition could fall
into George's list of vendor specific behavior.
All of that written, I still think we need to clarify item (b).  I now
think that what was meant is:  "...the security initialize function
shall take precedence over any other function specified by the FORMAT
UNIT command."	To me this means that you have to do the security
initialize stuff first, then whatever else you do is vendor specific.
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
George
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Gerry Houlder; T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: RE: Format Unit SI bit
You are both right and wrong.
What happen when the SI bit is set depends on the customers
specification. Is some cases the intent may that the device be totally
inoperable (think the helicopter and all electronics need to be
destroyed). In less radical conditions the drive may come back usable
with data scrubbed off. 
At the time this was put in there was no agreement by the committee as
to how scrubbed the data had to be, again that was intended to be left
up to the customers specification.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie 
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901 
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com 
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry
Houlder
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: T10 Reflector
Cc: Truong Nguyen - SISA
Subject: Re: Format Unit SI bit
I think Mark's interpretation is too broad. The SI bit is intended to
trigger a vendor specific security initialize feature. Things the device
has to do to implement this take precedence over other bits that might
specify conflicting demands. However things that specify the required
final format (e.g., logical block size, FMTPINFO) and whether existing
defect lists are included or not (e.g., FMTDATA, CMPLST, DEFECT LIST
FORMAT, defect list length) should still be obeyed. If an initialization
pattern is specified, that should be the pattern left on the media after
the security initialize is complete. The SI bit probably affects how
defective areas (i.e., areas excluded from the user data area) are
treated, but should not cause the device to ignore instructions about
which areas are to be handled as defective areas.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mark Evans <Mark.Evans at wdc.com> wrote:
Hi Truong,
The SI bit was added into the INITIALIZATION PATTERN DESCRIPTOR for the
FORMAT UNIT command in SBCr-05 based on proposal 96-186R1.  As you wrote
the definition of the bit was modified slightly in SBC-r06 as the result
of discussion at the SCSI working group meetings in October of 1996.
The definition of the SI bit has not been changed since that time.
What I think we really intended the new wording to mean is, "If the SI
bit its set to one, then the device server shall ignore:
a)	 the FMTPINFO field;
b)	the FMTDATA bit;
c)	 the CMPLST bit;
d)	the DEFECT LIST FORMAT field;
e)	 all of the bits and fields in the parameter list header, except
the IMMED bit; and
f)	  any defect list data.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong.  You know who you are, and I'm sure
you will - ha!
Please feel free to call or send an email to me with any comments or
questions that you have about this stuff. 
Regards, 
Mark Evans
Western Digital Corporation
5863 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: mark.evans at wdc.com
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Truong
Nguyen - SISA
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Format Unit SI bit
In SBC3r27, in the Format Unit initialization pattern descriptor
subclause 5.3.2.3, there is a statement regarding the SI bit precedence:
"An SI bit set to one shall take precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT
CDB field."
What is this statement supposed to mean specifically?
It seems as though the statement was added some time ago in SBCr6:
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/t10r/1996/r9610141.htm
"Clarified SI by adding the statement An SI bit set to one shall take
precedence over any other FORMAT UNIT field."
I could not find any proposals associated with the modification.
Thanks,
Truong Nguyen
Samsung Information Systems America


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Jun  8 13:06:57 2011
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:06:57 -0500
Subject: Reminder: SAS PHY WG conference call, 10:00 am CDT, June 9, 2011
Message-ID: <mailman.323.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106080_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
AC coupling capacitor requirements [Felton]
 SSC requirements: How much SSC is needed? [Olawsky]
Connector updates
11-270r0 <http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-270r0.pdf&gt; Drive power
[Pavlak]
11-268r0 <http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-268r0.pdf&gt; NEXT vs. FEXT
measurement configurations [Lapidot]
Channel analysis updates
SAS-3 Electrical Spec
(11-221r2<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-221r2.pdf&gt;)
[Witt]
Additional items
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Webex information:
Topic: SAS PHY WG
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2011
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 826 515 680
Meeting Password: newsas
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&RT
=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: newsas
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&OR
T=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&
ST=1&SHA2=SVyTzTdCGzSIxsgaH07Ohz1skP261RTOA-QjHZRNW6c=&RT=MiM3
WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time
you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by
clicking this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Wed Jun  8 13:16:27 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:16:27 -0600
Subject: 3 more days to make your July T10 hotel reservation
Message-ID: <mailman.324.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Procrastinators: You have 3 more days to make your hotel reservation for the
July T10 meetings in Colorado Springs. The meeting announcement, with a link
to the Hilton reservations site, is available at:
  http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/announce/ann-m104.pdf
Remember to say your reservation is for one person even if your spouse is
staying with you (or you'll be quoted a higher rate).
If you have any problems making your reservation, please let me know and I
will be glad to help. After the cutoff date, I will try to help, but whatever
rooms remain in the guest block go back into the general hotel room pool.
The Hilton reservations site will say there is a parking fee, but
self-parking is included in the group rate. 
LSI will be hosting a reception at the Phantom Canyon micro-brewery (and pool
hall) on Wednesday evening. You can bring your spouse, but they do not allow
minors. We will be having BBQ again this year.
I hope to see you next month!
John
--
John Lohmeyer		       Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Corp.		       Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.		Cell: +1-719-338-1642
Colo Spgs, CO 80907
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun 11 23:01:00 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:01:00 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2011/06/05
Message-ID: <mailman.325.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
(SOP) - (PQI) PCIe Queuing Interface
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo, Tim Symons, Neil Wanamaker)
T10/11-157r7   Uploaded: 2011/06/06   1829006 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-157r7.pdf
SOX - PQI and NVMe(r) Queuing Comparison
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo)
T10/11-228r2   Uploaded: 2011/06/08   622824 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-228r2.pdf
SPC-4: Inconsistent Mode Page/Subpage Code Definitions
(by: Ralph Weber)
T10/11-247r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/08   46021 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-247r1.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group - May 10, 2011
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-251r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/06   36269 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-251r1.pdf
Minutes of SCSI over PCIe (SOP) teleconference 2011-05-23
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/11-260r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/06   84985 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-260r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group conference call May 26, 2011
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-262r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/06   24456 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-262r1.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group conference call June 2, 2011
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-265r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/05   26216 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-265r0.pdf
Cap testing and requirements
(by: Mickey Felton)
T10/11-267r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/09   288917 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-267r0.pdf
NEXT vs. FEXT Measurement Configurations
(by: Doron Lapidot)
T10/11-268r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/07   84722 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-268r0.pdf
SAS-3 12G ConnectorDrive Power Pin Configuration
(by: Ray Pavlak)
T10/11-270r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/08   154369 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-270r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
(Report generated on 2011/06/12 at 00:01:00)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Sun Jun 12 15:44:31 2011
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:44:31 -0700
Subject: SOP Proposals
Message-ID: <mailman.326.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106121_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have uploaded 4 SOP proposals for discussion at the conference call on
Monday.
11-276 - The initial draft of SOP.  This is mainly template material with
some information filled in.  I would like to vote this at the July plenary
as the rev 0
11-277 - SOP Architecture.  This is the proposed subclause 4.1
11-278 - SOP Domains.  This is the proposed subclause 4.2
11-279 - SOP IU Definitions.  This is the proposed list of IU definitions
targeted at subclause 5.1.
I also considered pulling out some of the other material and starting
proposals, but chose to simply leave in the empty subclauses.
-------------------------------------------------
Curtis E. Stevens
Director, Standards & Features Technology
3355 Michelson Dr. #100
Office: 1-1041
Irvine, Ca. 92612
Phone: 949-672-7933
Cell: 949-307-5050
E-Mail: Curtis.Stevens at WDC.com  
Remember, you may only be blamed for something if you are actually doing
something.


From keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp  Mon Jun 13 02:32:32 2011
From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp (keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:32:32 +0900
Subject: Posted: draft June agenda and others
Message-ID: <mailman.327.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
I posted draft June agenda, a missing file and revised spec. as follows;
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Proposal/Jun11
 DraftAgenda June11.doc
 GET_EVENT_STATUS_NOTIFICATION.pdf
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Spec/FUJI8R0891.zip
Commented items and many typos of 'filed' for 'field' were corrected.
About ZPready state proposal, could you give your opinion?
Especially your comment for
- ZPready state
- Timer in drive
- Assumed problems BIOS impact, OS impact, Application software
- ATA Power management model
I want to know about "Event Driven of host Power Management" and "what is
SATA
Asynchronous Notification of host and why it is necessary for host".
Current ZPODD model uses a timer in host. Is it "Event Driven of host Power
Management"?
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From curtis.stevens at wdc.com  Mon Jun 13 09:24:03 2011
From: curtis.stevens at wdc.com (Curtis Stevens)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:24:03 -0700
Subject: No SOP Telecon Today
Message-ID: <mailman.328.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106131_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I may have inadvertently called a meeting for today.  The SOP proposals are
on the agenda for the F2F 16-17 June.
-------------------------------------------------
Curtis E. Stevens
Director, Standards & Features Technology
3355 Michelson Dr. #100
Office: 1-1041
Irvine, Ca. 92612
Phone: 949-672-7933
Cell: 949-307-5050
E-Mail: Curtis.Stevens at WDC.com  
Remember, you may only be blamed for something if you are actually doing
something.


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Mon Jun 13 09:51:39 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:51:39 -0600
Subject: Cut-off date extended for July T10 meeting
Message-ID: <mailman.329.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
The Antlers Hotel has added 5 rooms and extended the cutoff date for the July
T10 meetings. If you haven't made your reservations yet, you should be able
to do so until Friday. The reservations URL is in the meeting announcement
at:
  http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/announce/ann-m104.pdf
--
John Lohmeyer		       Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Corp.		       Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.		Cell: +1-719-338-1642
Colo Spgs, CO 80907
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From John.Lohmeyer at lsi.com  Mon Jun 13 09:53:35 2011
From: John.Lohmeyer at lsi.com (Lohmeyer, John)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:53:35 -0600
Subject: Canceled: SOP Conference Call
Message-ID: <mailman.330.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106133_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106133_nameless-3044-4.txt">nameless-3044-4.txt</a>

When: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:30 PM-3:30 PM (GMT-07:00) Mountain Time (US &
Canada).
Where: WebEx
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
CURTIS STEVENS invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.
Meeting Number: 745 619 086
Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password.
To join this meeting (Now from iPhones too!)
1.	Go to https://premconf.webex.com/premconf/j.php?J=745619086
2.	Enter the meeting password: This meeting does not require a password.
3.	Click ???Join Now???.
4.	Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.
Teleconference information
Call-in toll-free number (Premiere): 1-866-546-3377  (US)
Call-in number (Premiere): 1-719-234-7872  (US)
Show global numbers:
https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=9827629443&num=1866-546
-3377
Attendee access code: 982 762 9443
http://www.webex.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and
any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to
be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, do not join the session.


From roweber at IEEE.org  Mon Jun 13 17:15:41 2011
From: roweber at IEEE.org (Ralph Weber)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:15:41 -0500
Subject: SPC-4 r31 is available
Message-ID: <mailman.331.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
SPC-4 r31 has been uploaded to:
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r31.pdf
In addition to the T10-approved substantive changes, several
editorial changes associated with the Second Edition of the
T10 Style Guide also have been made. The most conspicuous of
these is the application of the new data structure formats
(e.g., the multi-byte field changes). Several new sections
|from the Style Guide conventions were also copied to this
SPC-4 revision.
This should provide plenty of opportunities to shower the
editor with editorial corrections for goofs in the new
formats.
All the best,
.Ralph
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Tue Jun 14 07:38:48 2011
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:38:48 -0600
Subject: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r6)
Message-ID: <mailman.332.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
A new version of the transmitter training proposal has been posted. It is now
complete as the coding description as been added. That will be the main
discussion point in tomorrow's call.
Revision 6 - Added the following:
a) fixed the Control/Status TTIU table. The 3 coefficient requests should
have been named Coefficient
Request byte. There is no need to label the 3 coefficient statuses;
b) changed the name of the encoding from Differential Manchester to Bi-phase
Mark Code (BMC) which is
a more accurate name for the code being used;
c) added the BMC section to the proposal (see 5.3);
d) allow the scrambler to be reinitialized at the end of Train_Tx-SNW;
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Document Administrator
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:40 PM
To: Penokie, George
Subject: Re: RE: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r6)
2011/06/13 16:40:26 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-036r6.pdf
Normally, the posting/archiving process takes about 30 minutes.
Please contact John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
should you need further assistance.
"Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
> From: "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
> To: T10 Document Administrator <docs at t10.org>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:30:57 -0600
> Subject: RE: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r6)
> Extracted-To: AutoPost
> 
> 
> 
> Bye for now, 
> George Penokie
>  
> LSI Corporation 
> 3033 41st St. NW 
> Suite 100 
> Rochester, MN 55901
>  
> 507-328-9017 
> george.penokie at lsi.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com [mailto:localadmin at scsibbs.lsi.com] On
Behalf Of T10 Document Administrator
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:25 PM
> To: Penokie, George
> Subject: T10 Document Number Assigned (T10/11-036r6)
> 
> 2011/06/13 16:25:26 (AD v1.36)
> 
> ## Your T10 document number request has been approved and
> ## the following document number was assigned:
> 
>   Document Number: T10/11-036r6
>	Upload Code: AC_00663cwfhe39twG (Do not delete or change this line.)
>     Document_Date: 2011/06/13
>   Document_Author: George Penokie
>    Document_Title: SPL-2: Transmitter Training
>    Meeting_Agenda: SAS_Prot - Serial Attached SCSI Protocol
>   Meeting_Agenda2: none
> Document_Comments: <none>
>      Other_Number: <none>
> 
> ## POSTING YOUR DOCUMENT USING A WEB BROWSER
> ## -----------------------------------------
> ##
> ## You may upload the file(s) for your document using
> ## the form at:
> ##
> ##   http://www.t10.org/fupload.htm
> ##
> ##
> ## POSTING YOUR DOCUMENT BY REPLYING TO THIS EMAIL
> ## -----------------------------------------------
> ##
> ## Please reply to this email and attach your document 
> ## to the reply email.  Please attach both the source 
> ## file and a PDF file made from your source file.  
> ## The source file may be ZIP'd, but the PDF file must
> ## not be ZIP'd.
> ##
> ## Please generate your PDF files for posting to be 
> ## compatible with Acrobat 5.x (PDF 1.4). (This
> ## parameter is set in Distiller, Settings, Job 
> ## Options, Compatibility.)
> ##
> ## If you do not attach a PDF file, your upload will be
> ## forwarded to an administrator.  This will delay your
> ## posting until the administrator can make the PDF file
> ## for you.
> ##
> ## While you are not required to provide the source file, 
> ## it is strongly recommended that you do so. The source
> ## file will be archived in case the PDF file must be 
> ## re-created.
> ##
> ## It is critical that your reply email include the above
> ## Upload Code.  Without it, your posting cannot be
> ## processed. The filenames you use for your attachment(s)
> ## are not important as long as the extensions are correct.
> ##
> ##
> ## POSTING NON-PDF DOCUMENTS
> ## -------------------------
> ##
> ## A PDF file is necessary for the T10 mailings. You may
> ## also post one or more non-PDF files on the T10 web site
> ## as long as the extensions are all unique. These files 
> ## are not included in the T10 mailings, but are made
> ## available for downloading.
> ##
> ## To post additional files on the T10 web site, edit the
> ## Post File line to add the file extension(s) that you 
> ## want posted. Then attach file(s) with matching 
> ## extensions to your email.
> ##
> ## Example: To post an Excel spreadsheet in addition to 
> ## a PDF file, edit the line to read: Post_File: PDF XLS
> ##
> Post_File: PDF
> ##
> ## Any files you attach that do not match an extension 
> ## listed on the Post File line will be assumed to be a 
> ## source file and will be archived but not posted.
> ##
> ##
> ##  CHANGING YOUR MIND
> ##  ------------------
> ##
> ## If you wish to cancel this document number, reply to 
> ## this email without any attachments and edit the 
> ## following line to change the word no to yes:
> ##
>    Cancel_Document_Number: no
> ##
> ## Once you post a document, you cannot cancel it.
> ##
> ##
> ##  EDITING DOCUMENT INFORMATION
> ##  ----------------------------
> ##
> ## If one of the above fields Document Date, Document
> ## Title, Document Author, Document Title, Meeting 
> ## Agenda, Comments, and Other Number is no longer 
> ## accurate, you may edit it as necessary.
> ##
> ## Be careful if you edit the Meeting Agenda field;
> ## only the first word is used.  It must be one of 
> ## the words available on the Add_to_agenda pull-down
> ## from the web site.  These words may change 
> ## periodically and as of June 2002 they were: ADI, 
> ## CAP, MMC, PIP, SAS_Prot, SAS_PHY, SBP, SPI, SRP, 
> ## SSC, SSM, and T10.
> ##
> ##
> ## COPYRIGHT POLICY
> ## ----------------
> ##
> ## Do not submit documents containing a copyright 
> ## statement unless you add the following statement:
> ##
> ##	Permission is granted to members of INCITS, its 
> ##	technical committees and their associated task 
> ##	groups to reproduce this document for the purposes
> ##	of INCITS standardization activities, provided
> ##	this notice is included.
> ##
> ## If you upload a copyrighted document, with or without
> ## this statement, it will be assumed implicitly that you
> ## and your organization have given the above permission.
> ##
> ##
> ## APPROPRIATE CONTENT
> ## -------------------
> ##
> ## Do not upload inappropriate material.  If you do, your
> ## files will be removed and your posting privileges will
> ## be revoked.
> 
> Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\11-036r6.pdf"
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Jun 15 06:59:42 2011
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:59:42 -0500
Subject: Reminder: SAS PHY WG conference call, 10:00 am CDT, June 16, 2011
Message-ID: <mailman.333.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106150_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
SSC requirements: How much SSC is needed? [Olawsky]
AC coupling for receiver only [Seidel]
Connector updates
Channel updates
SAS-3 Electrical Spec
(11-221r2<http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-221r2.pdf&gt;)
[Witt]
How do we deal with active cable training?
New items
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Webex information: **
Topic: SAS PHY WG
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 826 515 680
Meeting Password: newsas
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&RT
=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: newsas
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&OR
T=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&
ST=1&SHA2=SVyTzTdCGzSIxsgaH07Ohz1skP261RTOA-QjHZRNW6c=&RT=MiM3
WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time
you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by
clicking this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Jun 15 07:31:19 2011
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:31:19 -0600
Subject: Reminder of Transmitter training proposal discussion (11-036) today
Message-ID: <mailman.334.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
George Penokie has invited you to present at an online meeting using
Microsoft(r) Office Live Meeting service.
Join the meeting
AUDIO INFORMATION 
Telephone Conferencing
Choose one of the following:
*	Start the Office Live Meeting client, and then in the Voice & Video
pane, click Join Conference.  The conferencing service will call you at the
number you specify. (Recommended)
*	Dial the conferencing service directly, and enter the participant
code shown below:
Toll-free:		+1-8662147945
Toll:		+1-7026964029
Participant Code:		5073289017
FIRST-TIME USERS 
To save time before the meeting, check your system to make sure it is ready
to use Office Live Meeting.
TROUBLESHOOTING 
Unable to join the meeting?  Follow these steps:
	1.	Copy this address and paste into your web browser: 
		https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/lsi/join
	2.	Copy and paste the required information:
		Meeting ID: 5KJCJS
		Entry Code: hc&wK6d
		Location: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/lsi
If you still cannot enter the meeting, contact support.
NOTICE 
Office Live Meeting can be used to record meetings. By participating in this
meeting, you agree that your communications may be monitored or recorded at
any time during the meeting.
Bye for now, 
George Penokie
LSI Corporation 
3033 41st St. NW 
Suite 100 
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017 
george.penokie at lsi.com
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From kishore.k.karthikeyan at intel.com  Wed Jun 15 10:32:13 2011
From: kishore.k.karthikeyan at intel.com (Karthikeyan, Kishore K)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:32:13 -0700
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
 training)
Message-ID: <mailman.335.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106152_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106152_image003.png">image003.png</a>

Hi all
I had some comments on the 11-036r6 proposal that I was hoping to get covered
in the call today but the email I sent last night bounced from t10 reflector
and unfortunately, I missed today's conference call too.
Given below are the review comments/questions from my review of pages 1- 88
of 11-036r6.
Thanks
Kishore
#1:
Pg 33, last line
"If the phy's receiver does not detect a pattern marker after a Train_Tx
pattern then the pattern marker shall be invalid.
What is the above statement trying to say? As there is no time bound for this
pattern detection, what scenario is this statement trying to cover?
#2:
Pg 35
The control/status TTIU is used by a phy to:
a) ....
b) ......
Statement b) does not match the contents of the fields. Training status word
contents are not used to receive status of the attached phy's transmitter. It
is used to convey the current status of the transmitter training to the
attached phy.
#3:
Pg 44
[cid:image003.png at 01CC2B45.51A8B350]
Shouldn't this read as follows --> then a new Train_Tx-SNW shall be performed
(if possible) or Train_Rx-SNW shall be performed (if Train_Tx-SNW not
possible) based on the next highest, untried, commonly supported settings.
#4:
Pg 37
In the paragraph about phy reset problem
A phy reset problem occurs:
a) ----
b) ----
c) ----
Shouldn't we also add one more condition to this to cover Train_Tx-SNW?
d) after a Train_Tx-SNW, if the Train_Tx-SNW is invalid and there are no
additional, untried, commonly supported settings.
See pg 81 --> 5.9.4.5.1
#5:
Pg 54
Just below the figure
Spelling mistake -->  Transmitter
#6:
Page 53, last line
Grammatical error --> after "of"
#7:
pg 55
Typo in figure --> TTIU instead of ITTU
#8:
Pg 81
Instead of "the phy shall", it should be "this state shall" in 2)
#9:
Pg 88
typo (use 1,2 and 3 instead of 1,1,1 in these paragraphs for the "transmitter
Adjustment complete" and the "current coefficient")
#10:
Just for my understanding, what was the reason for disabling OOB detection
during Train-Tx window? We don't disable it for Train-Rx then why disable it
for Train-Tx?


From George.Penokie at lsi.com  Wed Jun 15 12:46:26 2011
From: George.Penokie at lsi.com (Penokie, George)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:46:26 -0600
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
 training)
Message-ID: <mailman.336.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106153_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106153_image001.png">image001.png</a>

Kishore,
Thanks for your comments. See my responses below.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Karthikeyan,
Kishore K
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:32 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
training)
Hi all
I had some comments on the 11-036r6 proposal that I was hoping to get covered
in the call today but the email I sent last night bounced from t10 reflector
and unfortunately, I missed today's conference call too.
Given below are the review comments/questions from my review of pages 1- 88
of 11-036r6.
Thanks
Kishore
#1:
Pg 33, last line
"If the phy's receiver does not detect a pattern marker after a Train_Tx
pattern then the pattern marker shall be invalid.
What is the above statement trying to say? As there is no time bound for this
pattern detection, what scenario is this statement trying to cover?
GP - The Train-Tx pattern is very specific and clearly defined in table 9. If
there is no patter marker immediately following the 58 dwords of zeros that
is considered an invalid pattern marker.
#2:
Pg 35
The control/status TTIU is used by a phy to:
a) ....
b) ......
Statement b) does not match the contents of the fields. Training status word
contents are not used to receive status of the attached phy's transmitter. It
is used to convey the current status of the transmitter training to the
attached phy.
GP - It depends on what side of the but you are on. Your statement is correct
but so is the one in the proposal. For now I am not making any change here.
#3:
Pg 44
[cid:image001.png at 01CC2B69.D2E95810]
Shouldn't this read as follows --> then a new Train_Tx-SNW shall be performed
(if possible) or Train_Rx-SNW shall be performed (if Train_Tx-SNW not
possible) based on the next highest, untried, commonly supported settings.
GP - Yes - Fixed
#4:
Pg 37
In the paragraph about phy reset problem
A phy reset problem occurs:
a) ----
b) ----
c) ----
Shouldn't we also add one more condition to this to cover Train_Tx-SNW?
d) after a Train_Tx-SNW, if the Train_Tx-SNW is invalid and there are no
additional, untried, commonly supported settings.
See pg 81 --> 5.9.4.5.1
GP - Yes - Fixed
#5:
Pg 54
Just below the figure
Spelling mistake -->  Transmitter
GP - Fixed
#6:
Page 53, last line
Grammatical error --> after "of"
GP - Fixed
#7:
pg 55
Typo in figure --> TTIU instead of ITTU
GP - Fixed
#8:
Pg 81
Instead of "the phy shall", it should be "this state shall" in 2)
GP - The 'the phy shall' wording is the way these things are stated in the
SPxx state machines.  Just look in SLP-2 and you see that statement all over
the place in the SP state machine sections.
#9:
Pg 88
typo (use 1,2 and 3 instead of 1,1,1 in these paragraphs for the "transmitter
Adjustment complete" and the "current coefficient")
GP - Fixed
#10:
Just for my understanding, what was the reason for disabling OOB detection
during Train-Tx window? We don't disable it for Train-Rx then why disable it
for Train-Tx?
GP - I am not an expert on this but what I understand is that Manchester
encoded period is close to OOB timing and that could cause problems.


From kishore.k.karthikeyan at intel.com  Wed Jun 15 14:01:55 2011
From: kishore.k.karthikeyan at intel.com (Karthikeyan, Kishore K)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:01:55 -0700
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
 training)
Message-ID: <mailman.337.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106154_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106154_image001.png">image001.png</a>

Hi George
Thanks for the response.
Regarding #1
Table 9 says that the pattern marker has to be present before the TTIU and
not after the 58 scrambled dwords. My problem with this statement is that
when will I generate this invalid pattern marker message? The valid/invalid
pattern marker messages go to the PTT_PL state machine. So are we saying that
the phy's receiver should generate an invalid pattern marker message even
though no invalid pattern marker was detected (according to the definition of
invalid pattern marker that we defined in 5.7.4.2.3.4.3). And how many
messages will we generate and for how long? The statement makes it vague and
open to different interpretations.
Regarding #8:
I made the comment about "the phy shall" because you seemed to have changed
the wording from "the phy shall" to "this state shall" in the same section
5.9.4.4.1 --> see the first line of this section marked 1). I was trying to
make it consistent because paragraph 1 of this state's description says "this
state shall" and paragraph 2 says "the phy shall"
Thanks
Kishore
From: Penokie, George [mailto:George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Karthikeyan, Kishore K; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
training)
Kishore,
Thanks for your comments. See my responses below.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41st St. NW
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Karthikeyan,
Kishore K
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:32 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: Questions/comments regarding 11-036r6 proposal (Transmitter
training)
Hi all
I had some comments on the 11-036r6 proposal that I was hoping to get covered
in the call today but the email I sent last night bounced from t10 reflector
and unfortunately, I missed today's conference call too.
Given below are the review comments/questions from my review of pages 1- 88
of 11-036r6.
Thanks
Kishore
#1:
Pg 33, last line
"If the phy's receiver does not detect a pattern marker after a Train_Tx
pattern then the pattern marker shall be invalid.
What is the above statement trying to say? As there is no time bound for this
pattern detection, what scenario is this statement trying to cover?
GP - The Train-Tx pattern is very specific and clearly defined in table 9. If
there is no patter marker immediately following the 58 dwords of zeros that
is considered an invalid pattern marker.
#2:
Pg 35
The control/status TTIU is used by a phy to:
a) ....
b) ......
Statement b) does not match the contents of the fields. Training status word
contents are not used to receive status of the attached phy's transmitter. It
is used to convey the current status of the transmitter training to the
attached phy.
GP - It depends on what side of the but you are on. Your statement is correct
but so is the one in the proposal. For now I am not making any change here.
#3:
Pg 44
[cid:image001.png at 01CC2B5C.F3B4F4D0]
Shouldn't this read as follows --> then a new Train_Tx-SNW shall be performed
(if possible) or Train_Rx-SNW shall be performed (if Train_Tx-SNW not
possible) based on the next highest, untried, commonly supported settings.
GP - Yes - Fixed
#4:
Pg 37
In the paragraph about phy reset problem
A phy reset problem occurs:
a) ----
b) ----
c) ----
Shouldn't we also add one more condition to this to cover Train_Tx-SNW?
d) after a Train_Tx-SNW, if the Train_Tx-SNW is invalid and there are no
additional, untried, commonly supported settings.
See pg 81 --> 5.9.4.5.1
GP - Yes - Fixed
#5:
Pg 54
Just below the figure
Spelling mistake -->  Transmitter
GP - Fixed
#6:
Page 53, last line
Grammatical error --> after "of"
GP - Fixed
#7:
pg 55
Typo in figure --> TTIU instead of ITTU
GP - Fixed
#8:
Pg 81
Instead of "the phy shall", it should be "this state shall" in 2)
GP - The 'the phy shall' wording is the way these things are stated in the
SPxx state machines.  Just look in SLP-2 and you see that statement all over
the place in the SP state machine sections.
#9:
Pg 88
typo (use 1,2 and 3 instead of 1,1,1 in these paragraphs for the "transmitter
Adjustment complete" and the "current coefficient")
GP - Fixed
#10:
Just for my understanding, what was the reason for disabling OOB detection
during Train-Tx window? We don't disable it for Train-Rx then why disable it
for Train-Tx?
GP - I am not an expert on this but what I understand is that Manchester
encoded period is close to OOB timing and that could cause problems.


From keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp  Fri Jun 17 01:51:52 2011
From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp (keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:51:52 +0900
Subject: Posted: Lenovo comments
Message-ID: <mailman.338.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
I posted comments from Lenovo on ftp.
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Proposal/Jun11/Comparison chart20110617.pdf
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp  Sat Jun 18 06:59:33 2011
From: keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp (keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 22:59:33 +0900
Subject: [MtFuji] Posted: Lenovo comments
Message-ID: <mailman.339.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
*
Hello all,
I posted Pioneer comments on ftp.
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Proposal/Jun11/Comparison chart20110618.pdf
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp@avc-pioneer.com on 2011/06/17 17:51:52
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
cc:    "t10 at t10.org" <t10 at t10.org>
$B7oL>(B:  [MtFuji] Posted: Lenovo comments
Hello all,
I posted comments from Lenovo on ftp.
 ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_8/Proposal/Jun11/Comparison chart20110617.pdf
Best regards,
Keiji Katata
PIONEER CORP.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun 18 23:00:55 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 00:00:55 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2011/06/12
Message-ID: <mailman.340.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SPL-2: Transmitter Training
(by: George Penokie)
T10/11-036r6   Uploaded: 2011/06/13   1263561 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-036r6.pdf
SPL-2: Transmitter Training
(by: George Penokie)
T10/11-036r7   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   1266163 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-036r7.pdf
(SOP) - (PQI) PCIe Queuing Interface
(by: Ie-Wei Njoo, Tim Symons, Neil Wanamaker)
T10/11-157r8   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   1481652 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-157r8.pdf
Minimizing host SGL copies in SOP+PQI
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/11-209r2   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   116998 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-209r2.pdf
SAS-3 Electrical Spec
(by: Kevin Witt)
T10/11-221r3   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   1515148 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-221r3.pdf
NEXT vs. FEXT Measurement Configurations
(by: Doron Lapidot)
T10/11-268r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/13   204933 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-268r1.pdf
Minutes of SCSI over PCIe (SOP) teleconference 2011-06-06
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/11-269r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/13   86225 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-269r0.pdf
Minutes SMC-3 June 15, 2011 Phone conference
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-271r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   33598 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-271r0.pdf
Minutes of SAS PHY Working Group conference call June 9 2011
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-274r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/16   24403 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-274r0.pdf
SAS-3 12Gbs Transmitter Deevice Test Proposal
(by: Richard Mellitz)
T10/11-275r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   1273450 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-275r0.pdf
Proposed SOP Rev 0
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/11-276r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/12   257863 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-276r0.pdf
SOP Architecture
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/11-277r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/12   121921 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-277r0.pdf
SOP Domains
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/11-278r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/12   170738 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-278r0.pdf
SOP IU Definitions
(by: Curtis Stevens)
T10/11-279r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/12   199841 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-279r0.pdf
SPL2: DISCOVER field SHADOW ZONE ENABLED bit missing
(by: Brad Besmer)
T10/11-280r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/14   62587 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-280r0.pdf
SBC-3 Allow more commands in Sanitize Failed condition
(by: Gerald Houlder)
T10/11-281r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/15   31112 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-281r0.pdf
SOP vs PQI IU header
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/11-284r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/16   79651 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-284r0.pdf
PQI object locations
(by: Rob Elliott)
T10/11-285r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/16   63026 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-285r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Primary Commands - 4 (SPC-4)
(Editor: Ralph Weber)
 Rev: 31       Uploaded: 2011/06/13   5321770 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=spc4r31.pdf
(Report generated on 2011/06/19 at 00:00:55)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From kdbutt at us.ibm.com  Tue Jun 21 11:01:12 2011
From: kdbutt at us.ibm.com (Kevin D Butt)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:01:12 -0700
Subject: 11-160r1: Return all log subpages
Message-ID: <mailman.341.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106210_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I have posted an update to the proposal to clarify what is returned in all 
log subpages.
My notes from last CAP meetings said I was supposed to reference the CDB 
in one of the paragraphs.  I cannot resolve what was desired or how to do 
that.  The posted proposal has an editors note above the paragraph in 
question.  Any help would be appreciated.
2011/06/21 11:56:25 
Your request to upload a file or files to the T10 site has been accepted.
Your PDF file will be posted at:
   http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-160r1.pdf
Thanks,
Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
Data Protection & Retention
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt at us.ibm.com


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Jun 22 09:57:58 2011
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:57:58 -0500
Subject: Reminder: No SAS PHY call on 6/23
Message-ID: <mailman.342.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106220_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

No call this week. We will have a call on 6/30 at the normal time.
-- 
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Cell 405-206-4809
Office 405-392-3738
E-Mail	alvin.cox at seagate.com


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Sat Jun 25 23:00:56 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 Document Administrator)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:00:56 -0600
Subject: Recent T10 documents uploaded since 2011/06/19
Message-ID: <mailman.343.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 Document Administrator <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Proposals
---------
SPC: Returning all log subpages
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-160r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/21   21048 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-160r1.pdf
PQI Scatter Gather List and Descriptors
(by: Steve Johnson)
T10/11-166r4   Uploaded: 2011/06/23   93136 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-166r4.pdf
ADC-3: Corrections to 11-094
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-188r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   44020 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-188r1.pdf
SSC-4: PEWS setting resolution
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-201r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   18641 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-201r1.pdf
SSC-4: Clarify data lost in format operation
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-218r1   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   27822 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-218r1.pdf
SAS-3 Electrical Spec
(by: Kevin Witt)
T10/11-221r4   Uploaded: 2011/06/22   1517889 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-221r4.pdf
SPL-2: Resolve Zone Group Persistency Issue
(by: Brad Besmer)
T10/11-264r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   103650 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-264r0.pdf
SSC-4: Locate to EOD
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-272r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   47910 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-272r0.pdf
SSC-4: Remaining Capacity LP17
(by: Kevin Butt)
T10/11-273r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/20   47766 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-273r0.pdf
T11 Liaison Report June 2011
(by: Steven Wilson)
T10/11-288r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/21   27420 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-288r0.pdf
SAS-3 MultiLink connector and SFF-8639 ground compatibility
(by: Alvin Cox)
T10/11-289r0   Uploaded: 2011/06/21   890862 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=11-289r0.pdf
Working Drafts
--------------
SCSI Stream Commands - 4
(Editor: Dave Peterson)
 Rev: 01e      Uploaded: 2011/06/22   4218399 bytes
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=f&f=ssc4r01e.pdf
(Report generated on 2011/06/26 at 00:00:56)
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Tue Jun 28 01:00:00 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (T10 List Manager)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:00:00 -0600
Subject: T10 Reflector Monthly Reminder
Message-ID: <mailman.344.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* T10 List Manager <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
This is an automatic monthly posting to the T10 Reflector.  If you
receive this message, it means that you are subscribed to the T10
Reflector email list.
The T10 Reflector is provided by the SCSI Trade Association and
maintained by LSI Corp. This reflector exists to discuss INCITS
T10 Technical Committee issues and to disseminate T10-related
information (minutes, meeting notices, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not need to be an INCITS T10 Technical Committee member to
use this reflector, however you must agree to:
 * read the INCITS Patent Policy and the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines
 * acknowledge that the activities of the T10 Technical Committee are
   governed by the INCITS policies and procedures as specified in the
   reference documents RD-1 and RD-2
 * acknowledge that draft documents may change at any time, without notice.
The INCITS Patent Policy, the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines, the RD-1, and
the RD-2 are all available on the www.incits.org web site.
If you do not agree to the above conditions, then you must unsubscribe
to this reflector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
T10 Reflector is not intended to carry commercial traffic. People who post
advertisements, job offers, etc. will be removed from the reflector.
Please visit http://www.t10.org/t10r.htm for instructions on subscribing,
unsubscribing, or searching the T10 Reflector archives.
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org


From lohmeyer at t10.org  Tue Jun 28 14:17:48 2011
From: lohmeyer at t10.org (John Lohmeyer)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:17:48 -0600
Subject: Fwd: Announcement for Aug. SOP F2F meeting.
Message-ID: <mailman.345.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106281_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
Attachment #1: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106281_cb1a52.jpg">cb1a52.jpg</a>

Forwarded for Mike Fitzpatrick:
Toshiba is hosting a T10 SOP and PQI face-to-face meeting on August 15, 2011
right outside the San Jose Airport as follows:
Date:  Monday, August 15th from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM PDT	
Location: 
DoubleTree by Hilton San Jose 
2050 Gateway Place, San Jose, CA 95110
<http://doubletree1.hilton.com/en_US/dt/hotel/JOSE-DT-DoubleTree-by-Hilton-Ho
tel-San-Jose-California/index.do>www.sanjose.doubletree.com |
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/sanjosedoubletree>Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/DoubletreeSJ>Twitter |
<Blog<?xml:namespace">http://sanjosedoubletreehotel.com/>Blog<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
[]
The hotel is the same venue as the T13 meetings that will be held Tuesday -
Thursday.
There is no room block for this meeting so you can stay at any hotel of your
choice.
Any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Mike Fitzpatrick
Toshiba


From alvin.cox at seagate.com  Wed Jun 29 12:23:15 2011
From: alvin.cox at seagate.com (Alvin Cox)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:23:15 -0500
Subject: Reminder: SAS PHY WG conference call, 10:00 am CDT, June 30, 2011
Message-ID: <mailman.346.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106290_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Agenda:
SSC requirements: How much SSC is needed? [Olawsky]
AC coupling for receiver only [Seidel]
Connector updates
Channel updates
New items
Toll Free Dial in Number: (877)810-9442
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (636)651-3190
PARTICIPANT CODE: 3243413
Webex information:
Topic: SAS PHY WG
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Time: 10:00 am, Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Meeting Number: 826 515 680
Meeting Password: newsas
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&RT
=MiM3
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: newsas
4. Click "Join".
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&PW=NY2I0MTAzOTM5&OR
T=MiM3
-------------------------------------------------------
For assistance
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Go to https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/mc
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/j.php?ED=90748572&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&
ST=1&SHA2=SVyTzTdCGzSIxsgaH07Ohz1skP261RTOA-QjHZRNW6c=&RT=MiM3
WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time
you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by
clicking this link:
https://seagate.webex.com/seagate/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php


From Tim_Symons at pmc-sierra.com  Wed Jun 29 15:21:36 2011
From: Tim_Symons at pmc-sierra.com (Tim Symons)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:21:36 -0700
Subject: 11-292r0 : PQI draft 0 candidate posted
Message-ID: <mailman.347.1441607368.22522.t10@sandbox.t10.org>

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1106291_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

To fellow members of the SOP/PQI working group:
11-292r0 was posted on Tuesday 28th June and is the revision that
follows 11-157r9.
Document 11-292r0 includes the changes recommended by the SOP/PQI
working group on Monday 27th June.
Please review document 11-292r0 as this will be proposed to become PQI
draft rev0 at the face to face meeting on 12th July.
When we have a draft 0 this will enable new proposals and concepts to be
brought forward that can reference against a consistent baseline
document.
Regards
		Tim.
Tim Symons
Principal Engineer, PMC-Sierra Ltd.
Cell: 778 998 5025
E-mail Tim_Symons at pmc-sierra.com