SAT-3 Comment Resolution

Neil Wanamaker Neil.Wanamaker at
Thu Jul 24 14:24:38 PDT 2014

Formatted message: <a href="">HTML-formatted message</a>

In today's meeting we did not have the people with opinions and proper
expertise on the subject of tables 172/173: SPC/SBC commands allowed in the
presence of various ATA security modes.
In particular, it was unclear what the intent of the footnotes a) and b) was.
a ATA SECURITY CONFLICT shall not be returned for this command.
b Allowed unless otherwise specified.
The first appears to mandate NOT returning ILLEGAL REQUEST and the additional
sense code set to SECURITY CONFLICT IN TRANSLATED DEVICE, as noted in a 
paragraph above the tables (there is no asc/ascq for ATA SECURITY CONFLICT).
This is especially unclear as the note is not applied to all commands that
are marked as always allowed, and is applied to several commands marked
And the second appears unnecessary as it is only applied to LOG SELECT, and
there are no log pages identified elsewhere that appear to indicate a
security-related restriction.
Would it be acceptable to remove both footnotes and the references to them?
If not, constructive suggestions gratefully accepted.
It was also proposed that we add the missing third-party copy commands, with
all marked originate or abort in SPC-4 table 108  being marked
"conflict/allow/allow" and all marked retrieve being "allow/allow/allow".
Neil Wanamaker
Principal Engineer, Enterprise Storage Division
1380 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94089
neil.wanamaker at

More information about the T10 mailing list