SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: FCIP: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes



    IMHO, you're both right.  I have no problem with referencing a
    major stable version of an evolving T10 or T11 document (e.g.,
    iSCSI will almost certainly have to do this for SAM-2).  I also
    consider FC-MI to be authoritative due to both its interoperability
    focus and the expectation that it will be a de facto standard
    in the industry independent of its procedural situation in T11.
    
    I definitely want to see a reference to FC-MI, as I think
    it's significant that a T11 interoperability document
    prohibits Class 1 service.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Murali Rajagopal [mailto:muralir@lightsand.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:20 PM
    > To: ENDL_TX@computer.org; IPS Reflector
    > Subject: FCIP: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
    > 
    > 
    > Ralph:
    > 
    > Reference [4]  in the current draft already exists for BB-2. 
    > In the past
    > (see RFC 2625 Ref. showing pre-standard references) I had no 
    > difficulty in
    > getting a RFC published with such references. Maybe Elizabeth 
    > can check to
    > see if this is still the practice.
    > 
    > -Murali
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On 
    > Behalf Of Ralph
    > Weber
    > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:21 PM
    > To: IPS Reflector
    > Subject: Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
    > 
    > I support option 3.
    > 
    > Option 1 fails to reflect the reality of current T11 work on
    > Class 4.
    > 
    > Option 2 fails to consider the recent debate over iSCSI profiles.
    > The IETF position on profiles (as stated by the ADs during last
    > summer's debate) is that profiles must be stated as requirements
    > in RFCs. Therefore, the T11 FC-MI carries the weight of a standard
    > in the IETF and the FC-MI interoperability prohibition for Class 1
    > must be stated in the FC Encapsulation. (Either that or those
    > folks wanting to write iSCSI profiles can resharpen their pens
    > for round two.)
    > 
    > Option 4 attempts to link the good works of option 3 with
    > the bogus concept of profiles in option 2, which makes it
    > every bit as bogus.
    > 
    > Murali's option 5 guarantees that there will be no RFC on
    > FC Encapsulation until 2003 since there will be no FC-BB-2
    > standard to reference until then.
    > 
    > Thanks.
    > 
    > Ralph...
    > 
    > Elizabeth Rodriguez wrote:
    > 
    > >
    > > (Chair hat on)
    > >
    > > Let me jump back in here, and summarize as I see it:
    > >
    > > Codes from FC-BB cannot be taken intact, since there are 
    > invalid codes
    > > in that specification.
    > > Codes initially trimmed in January of this year, but Ralph correctly
    > > points out, that was prior to the formation of the FC encapsulation
    > > draft (e.g. discussion pertained directly to FCIP; did not take into
    > > consideration iFCP)
    > >
    > > That said, we can modify the current FC encapsulation draft 
    > to include
    > > other classes of service, if we so choose.
    > >
    > > We can choose to
    > > 1) Keep the table as is.
    > > Note: The current SOF/EOF codes defined in the FC 
    > encapsulation draft
    > > match the currently defined FC-BB-2 subset.
    > >
    > > 2) Add Class 1 codes
    > > Note:  FC-MI (technical report, not a standard) does not 
    > support Class
    > > 1.
    > > Note2: Practicality of Class 1 over IP questioned.
    > >
    > > 3) Add Class 4 codes
    > > Note:  Class 4 work is ongoing, but SOF/EOF codes currently 
    > defined for
    > > class 4 unchanged.
    > >
    > > 4) Add both class 1 and class 4 codes
    > >
    > > I would like to solicit input from everyone on what codes 
    > people feel
    > > should be included in the FC encapsulation draft.
    > > Note:  Drafts following FC encapsulation may restrict 
    > classes of service
    > > that draft supports.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Elizabeth
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Murali Rajagopal [mailto:muralir@lightsand.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:01 PM
    > > To: Charles Monia; IPS Reflector
    > > Subject: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
    > >
    > > On the specific topic of supported SOF and EOF codes the 
    > ietf documents
    > > should be driven by the specification provided in the *most 
    > relevant *
    > > document which in this case happens to be FC-BB-2 ant FC-MI.  FC-MI
    > > should
    > > be kept out of this.
    > >
    > > If we simply accept to adopt the SOF and EOF codes listed 
    > for BB-2 the
    > > problem is solved. FYI, BB-2 only supports Class 2, 3, and F codes.
    > > I don't see why we are making a big deal about this.
    > >
    > > -Murali
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 
    > [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    > > Charles Monia
    > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:33 PM
    > > To: IPS Reflector
    > > Subject: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
    > >
    > > Hi Folks:
    > >
    > > > David's observation is correct. FC-MI rev 1.8 (28 Sept 2001)
    > > > prohibits Class 1 and I can find no letter ballot comments
    > > > asking that it be reinstated.
    > >
    > > The last time I checked, the FC-MI spec was not a "standards track"
    > > document
    > > (to use IETF terminology). If that's still the case, is FC-MI's
    > > prohibition
    > > of class 1 a sufficient basis for precluding class 1 support in the
    > > encapsulation spec?
    > >
    > > Charles
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: Ralph Weber [mailto:ralphoweber@compuserve.com]
    > > > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:52 AM
    > > > To: IPS Reflector
    > > > Cc: Black_David@emc.com
    > > > Subject: Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > David's observation is correct. FC-MI rev 1.8 (28 Sept 2001)
    > > > prohibits Class 1 and I can find no letter ballot comments
    > > > asking that it be reinstated.
    > > >
    > > > Therefore, I am forced to agree with David. Class 1 MUST NOT
    > > > be mentioned in the FC Encapsulation draft. If necessary, a
    > > > note discussing interoperability and FC-MI can be added.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks.
    > > >
    > > > Ralph...
    > > >
    > > > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > FC-MI was going to prohibit Class 1 last time I 
    > checked.  Since the
    > > > > I in FC-MI stands for "Interoperability", this seems like a
    > > > reasonable
    > > > > rationale for excluding Class 1 service.
    > > > >
    > > > > --David
    > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > > > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    > > > > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    > > > > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    > > > > black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > >
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Wed Nov 14 13:17:41 2001
7815 messages in chronological order