Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

["Franco Travostino" <travos@nortelnetworks.com>]

I agree with this motion. 

You wrote under another heading: "Vague may be vague but it also is
not unnecessarily constraining." What a troubling statement was
this. I'm glad we now appear to be moving towards a constructive end
after all.

thanks
-franco

At 08:15 AM 11/7/2001, Ralph Weber wrote:
> Upon further reflection, I think
> the right thing to do
> is to list all the SOF/EOF codes defined in FC-BB in
> the FC Encapsulation draft.
>
> FIRST
>
> There is nothing in the FC Encapsulation draft other
> than to omission of Class 1 SOF/EOF codes that prevents
> encapsulating FC Class 1 frames for TCP transport.
> Sure, a TCP ULP that is smarter than anything anybody
> has thought about will be required to do it.  BUT
> there is (or should be) nothing the the FC Encapsulation
> draft that prevents such a protocol from being invented.
> AND the FC Encapsulation draft specifically says that
> you need the wisdom of some other protocol document in
> order to get any use out of the FC Encapsulation draft.
> Why force the mad man that devises a way to transport
> Class 1 over TCP/IP to revise the FC Encapsulation
> SOF/EOF tables?
>
> SECOND
>
> It is conceivable that a future version of iFCP
> (or maybe even FCIP) might want to support Class 4.
> Again, there is nothing in the FC Encapsulation
> draft that prevents this, except the omission
> of the SOF/EOF codes.
>
> FINALLY
>
> I believe that the elimination of all SOF/EOF
> codes other than Class 2, Class 3, AND CLASS F
> is a hold over from the early FCIP work, before
> the FC Encapsulation was split into a separate
> draft. I believe that decision was right for
> FCIP but wrong for an FC Encapsulation intended
> to be used by ALL FC protocols running over
> TCP/IP.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> Ralph...