RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

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

If one cannot enumerate the legitimate SOF/EOF codes as of 00:00 on Nov.
09 2001, then there is a standard body out there (not this one :-) with a
big problem on its hands. I would hate to see this problem propagating
into our IETF document, or being an excuse for any vague text of ours.
Should new SOF/EOF codes emerge, and should there be enough IP interest
around them, it should not be a problem to reissue a new FC common
encapsulation specification with just new SOF/EOF codes, and the stale
RFC will be marked as obsoleted by RFCxxx.

-franco

At 01:05 PM 11/8/2001, Elizabeth Rodriguez wrote:

(Participant mode)
 
I disagree with this motion.
We had this discussion back in January, and basically came to the conclusion that Class 1 and Class 4 should not be included, for the reasons that class 1 really cannot be supported across the IP network and class 4 is not really not defined yets, so the codes are not guaranteed to remain constant. 
Even if we do decide to accept Ralph's arguments to include class 1 and class 4 SOF/EOF codes, we cannot take ALL the codes from FC-BB and incorporate them into the FC Encapsulation draft.
Recall, we started out by including all the SOF/EOF codes from FC-BB-2.  We reevaluated in January 2001, when we analyzed the codes themselves.
Several that we excluded I think were valid (e.g. for class 1 and class 4), but others were completely bogus and undefined anywhere other than in FC-BB.
We cannot just blindly accept those codes.
 
If this motion is considered, we need to reopen that evaluation made in the January interim meeting and make a determination as to what codes need to be included in FC Common Encapsulation, and make sure not to include invalid codes.
 
Thanks,
 
Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----

From: Franco Travostino [mailto:travos@nortelnetworks.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:32 AM

To: ENDL_TX@computer.org; IPS Reflector

Cc: Murali Rajagopal; Elizabeth Rodriguez

Subject: Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

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...