Re: Bit numbering I-D nit

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Ralph,
I may have looked at this wrong, but though we have to change the way we
present (print) the bit numbering, the bits on the link are the same way it
was, or at least that is the way I read the RFC requirement.  What do you
think is the issue?

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 03/20/2002 08:34:57
PM

Please respond to roweber@acm.org

Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:    IPS Reflector <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:
Subject:    Bit numbering I-D nit



I am getting serious flack from the Fibre Channel
community over the bit numbering requirement
in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html.

The problem is that Fibre Channel uses the
other bit numbering scheme and interoperability
woes seem certain unless something gets
documented in the IETF RFCs.

Everybody agrees that the body of the FC
Frame Encapsulation and FCIP drafts can
have the IETF bit numbering in the figures.

What they all want is an appendix, or some
such thing in the drafts/RFCs that translates
it all back to the Fibre Channel view of
reality.

Such a thing seems destined to make waves
in the IETF review process, and possibly
even be a target for the RFC Editor's ax.

Should I just jump of the top of the Hilton
now, or is there a way out of this mess?

Thanks.

Ralph...