05.07.2014 Views

All approved UDF 2.60 DCNs

All approved UDF 2.60 DCNs

All approved UDF 2.60 DCNs

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>All</strong> <strong>approved</strong> <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> <strong>DCNs</strong><br />

Document: OSTA Universal Disk Format<br />

Subject: Make <strong>UDF</strong>2.50 identical to <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> for non-POW<br />

Date: November 12, 2004; modified February 22, 2005;<br />

DCN-5122<br />

Description:<br />

This DCN has consequences for the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata only, so no change for <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong>.<br />

It only proposes a few small modifications in existing <strong>DCNs</strong>. These modifications only<br />

have an effect for the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata.<br />

The goal is that <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 together with the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata becomes ‘guaranteed<br />

identical’ to <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> for the non-Pseudo OverWrite (non-POW) case.<br />

This can be achieved by a small modification in DCN-5102 and addition of DCN-5119 to<br />

the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata. These modifications are explained here. After these modifications<br />

are excecuted, this DCN-5122 can effectively disappear, but it is maintained in the set of<br />

<strong>DCNs</strong> and <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata as clarification.<br />

None of these modifications have real implementation consequences for an existing <strong>UDF</strong><br />

implementation.<br />

A Major benefit from this is that an implementer can use a single specification document<br />

to implement both <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 and <strong>2.60</strong>, namely the <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> spec, instead of going<br />

through the 2.50 spec and all errata <strong>DCNs</strong> for implementing <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50. So <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 and<br />

<strong>2.60</strong> can be implemented in one action.<br />

The only thing that a <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 implementer needs to know is that Pseudo OverWrite and<br />

pseudo-overwritable partitions are not allowed in <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 and that the <strong>UDF</strong> Revision<br />

field in Domain Entity Identifiers and <strong>UDF</strong> Entity Identifiers must have a value #0250<br />

instead of #0260 (see 2.1.5.3). This will be explained in the heading of the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50<br />

errata document, so a <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 implementer can decide for himself whether to use the<br />

<strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 + errata or the <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> document.<br />

What is needed to make (<strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 + errata) ‘guaranteed identical’ to (<strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> for<br />

non-POW media)?<br />

If we would add all <strong>DCNs</strong> to the <strong>UDF</strong> 2.50 errata, we would have proved that 2.50 plus<br />

2.50 errata is identical to <strong>2.60</strong>.<br />

<strong>DCNs</strong> that cannot be added to the 2.50 errata are the POW related ones, so 5111, 5114<br />

and 5116. There is only one non-POW related issue that is in DCN-5116. It is dealt with<br />

below. Further, DCN-5120 is valid for <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> only, so it does not make sense as <strong>UDF</strong><br />

2.50 errata.<br />

<strong>All</strong> <strong>approved</strong> <strong>UDF</strong> <strong>2.60</strong> <strong>DCNs</strong> 62 February 28, 2005

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!