Re: FCoverSCTP/IP specification

[David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> Any FC traffic could be encapsulated.  You may wish to make a separate
> informative RFC as to how to use such an encapsulation to exchange IP over
> FC, FCP-x, etc.  This could eventually include buffering and bandwidth
> management tricks, but with this separate RFC.  Again, I would expect that
> to be other documents and likely ones created by T11 themselves.
> http://www.t11.org
> 
> I think the major trick is to avoid crossing into T11 areas as their work is
> ongoing and would be a duplication of efforts to attempt to define some kind
> of subset.  This spec should relate to the mundane interconnects,
> cross-links and the like.  (Networking.)

This is just an assertion of the principle anything can be
engineered which I doubt anyone would disagree with. The devil
is in the details and we have no details. By analogy running
IP over FC is just a matter of encapuslating of a few RFCs over
existing T11 docs, if it was that easy then why has the IPoverFC
WG been working for over a year, and in fact a WG at all?

From what you seem to be asserting this WG has no purpose as the
solution is trivially obvious.  Most of us disagree.

	-David

P.S. Now I will do as I promised and ignore any further discussion
     without a draft.