How about
stating something that we do support in the Scope section:
"This
document only considers encapsulation for only FC Classes 2 and 3."
-Murali
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
[mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Franco
Travostino
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001
11:31 AM
To: ENDL_TX@computer.org; IPS
Reflector
Subject: Re: FCencap: Missing
SOF/EOF characters
At 12:54 PM
11/6/2001, Ralph Weber wrote:
"This document describes
common mechanisms for the transport
of Fibre Channel frames over an IP network within the limitations
of service provided by an IP network. The topics described in
this document include the encapsulation format and a mechanism
for enforcing the Fibre Channel frame lifetime limits."
This proposed text comes a tad closer, but it's cryptic still.
I am NOT willing to discuss Fibre Channel
Classes in the draft
because to do so would require adding a definition of the term.
Fibre Channel Classes are not discussed in the draft as it is
currently written.
I agree that a definition/discussion would be way inappropriate here. A T11
citation should do the trick instead. We already have a sentence like "The
format and content of an FC frame is described in the FC standards (e.g., FC-FS
[3], FC-SW-2 [4], and FC-PI [5])." I don't see a problem with
writing "Scope is limited to FC Class 2 and 3, which are
described in the FC standard ([x]), and then adding [x] and the authoritative T11
document to Section 7 References. This direct and simple.
-franco
Ralph...
Franco Travostino wrote:
> Ralph,
> why should we be waiting until 5.3 (last page) to break this news (e.g.,
Class 1 isn't supported)?
> Can we move your text up to section 1, aptly titled "Scope".
Alternately, we could narrow down the very title of the document.
>
> 0.02
> -franco
