FCIP Conference Call Minutes - 11/12/01

["Murali Rajagopal" <muralir@lightsand.com>]

FCIP Conference Call Minutes:

Meeting Date: 11/12/01 - 1PM-3PM PST
Minutes by: Venkat Rangan, Rhapsody Networks
Next conference call: 11/14/01 - 1PM-3PM PST
Next meeting owner: Larry Lamers, San Valley

Attendees:
Venkat Rangan, Rhapsody Networks
Ralph Weber, ENDL
Murali Rajagopal, Lightsand
Andy Hellend, Lightsand
Elizabeth Rodriguez, Lucent
Bill Creek, Lucent
Milan Merhar, Pirus
Anil Rijhsinghani, McData
Kha Sin Teow, Brocade
Neil Wanamaker, Akara
Bob Snively, Brocade
Jim Nelson, Vixel
Don Fraser, Compaq

Agenda:

1. NAPT Solution aka Setup Protocol

Murali and Bob have had discussions that have tied up all the loose ends
with the NAPT proposal version 8 as well as the contents from the
"FCIP_Setup_Protocol.pdf" distributed by Murali on 11/2. The gist of it is
that the receiver information will be useful and provided. Policy can state
whether a zero-receiver information is acceptable or not. The sender
provides what he thinks is the Receiver's WWN and the receiver can either
accept it or provide a "restart-short-frame".

Details to be provided in a new document from Bob, with all the authors
studying it and being prepared for the Wednesday's call, to conclude.

The objective is to get the new proposal studied and accepted by the team,
so Ralph can integrate that into a FCIP Draft 6b. It will not be integrated
into a NAPTs version 9. Draft 6b will be sent to the Internet Draft office
by Wednesday evening.

The authors discussed many details of the proposal.

Can the FCIP Short-Frame be longer than the shortest FC frame? We don't have
an answer yet.

Short Frame has an FCIP Identifier of the source of the link. If the Echo
short frame comes back with mis-matched information, the connection is blown
away. The NULL identifier behavior is described, and how a device treats
NULL identifiers is an FC Entity defined policy.

The new proposal is designed to handle cases where the receiver cannot
accept certain conditions on multi-connection links such as treating Class-F
and priority based connections, as well as informing the sender an
appropriate set of parameters so a future connection may succeed.

2. Model Discussions

Andy added some items to the model after discussions with Larry. This is
more of a FC-BB issue, but seems relevant for FCIP. The model is pretty much
the same as before, i.e., the Irvine Meeting. A model will be posted out for
discussions by Wednesday, for a discussion by the FCIP Author's group after
the NAPTs additions to Draft 6b will be discussed.

Venkat Rangan
Rhapsody Networks Inc.
http://www.rhapsodynetworks.com