RE: FCoverSCTP/IP specification

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

David,

You are right. And, as was already pointed out, we could hardly consider
the one page
outline as a proposal (or could we?).

Julo

David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM> on 22/08/2000 03:04:48

Please respond to David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>

To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
Subject:  RE: FCoverSCTP/IP specification




In reading the discussion of FC over SCTP there has been a lot of
high level posturing but a distinct lack of details.

Assuming we all have and understand both the FC specs and SCTP specs,
there is a whole lot of details beyond just stating "run FC over SCTP".

There are lots of interesting questions that need to be addressed, simple
examples of which might be:

1) What level of FC is running over SCTP? FC-0 or FC-4 or something
   in between? Or just FCP? Or FCP-2?

2) Of the various FC service classes, which are supported and which are
not?

3) Of the various Mode pages defined in SCSI and FCP, how are the values
   interpreted and what should the recommended values be?

4) If third part transfers are supported what is the addressing used?

5) How is login and authentication done?

etc etc etc.

[I really don't want to hear answers to these particular questions
in response to this e-mail, they are but 5 of many dozens I can think of.]

What I would like to see is the proponents of FCoverSCTP/IP take the
time to write up a detailed draft that has enough information that
someone could make an attempt to prototype an implementation.  Without
such a draft there is no purpose debating the theoretical aspects of an
undefined protocol. The other IPS protocols, SEP, iSCSI and the FC
tunneling encapsulation, have such detailed drafts that I can have a
concrete discussion about. I believe FCoverSCTP/IP may have merit, but
I can't know until I see details.

So until I see a real draft with real details I can discuss, I am going
to ignore any further discussion and strongly encourage others to
do the same.

     -David