This message is from the T13 list server.
Question 8 to the SATA II Working Group was discussed at the Cab/Con working group teleconference. The consensus was that the current specification was unnecessarily tight and should be changed to 'complies with UL 94v-1 or better' and not refer to UL follow up service requirements. Any lab that can test to UL 94v-1 is acceptable. I encouraged the people on the call to review ATA/ATAPI-7 to be sure connector test requirements are appropriate. Best Regards, Dan Colegrove 8. UL Test Requirement (14.2.6.3) What is meant by this statement in 14.2.6.3: Material certification or certificate of compliance required with each lot to satisfy the Underwriters Laboratories follow-up service requirements. Do we want to require UL in the standard, or do we want the procedure (UL 94v-0) to be the requirement? Additional Comments: Is actual submission of the connector to UL the requirement or is compliance with the UL procedure the requirement? Non-US companies may not use UL or have alternate certifying organizations in their country. The way the document reads now it requires use of the UL Company's services. SATA II Working Group Recommendation: KSG> In the 1.0a spec this is Table 8 in section 6.3.9.3 regarding flammability. This should be referred to the CabCon group. My inclination is that it is correct as written and that this has potential far-reaching consequence/impact. I don't know all the regulatory issues, but I'd hate to have Serial ATA be implicated in someone's house burning down because the connector flammability requirements did not meet regulatory requirements. I would think that the benefit of this requirement is actually having the UL recognition, since meeting the requirement without the recognition would not seem to provide the equivalent regulatory benefit. Best Regards, Daniel J. Colegrove Hitachi Global Storage Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] (702) 614-6119
