Mailing list

[Black_David@emc.com]

> I would like to suggest that perhaps a separate reflector be created for
FC
> over IP related discussions. I think combining the discussions in one
> reflector would create unnecessary confusion and burden for everyone to
> sort out which belongs where.

That's not likely to happen because there are significant areas of overlap
between iSCSI and FC over IP (which is why they're in a common WG).
In the past few days, both the discussions of SCTP and the contrasting
design motivations between iSCSI and FC over IP have been relevant to
both efforts (and contribute to results that the WG is expected to produce),

and there's more to come.  I should note that the people working on
FC over IP have been informed that congestion control is required.

A useful convention is to flag the subject of a message that's about only
one of the protocol efforts.  iSCSI: is a good flag, and for FC over IP,
I'm informed that FCoverIP: is preferable to FC/IP:.  Leave the flag out
of a message that's germane to both, to avoid mail filters of the form:

if (flag-for-protocol-I-want-to-ignore) delete message;

And of course, I just sent an iSCSI message without
the flag.  Hopefully, I won't provide too many more
examples of what not to do :-(.

--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909
black_david@emc.com  Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------