RE: Bit numbering I-D nit

[Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>]

No.

I believe it must be in the text of the FC Encapsulation
document.  It is a necessary definition of the conventions
applied to the FC bit stream.

What is really required is a simple mapping table that may
be used by both FC folks and IP folks to map back and forth
between the conventions.  That way no one will be confused.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murali Rajagopal [mailto:muralir@cox.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:56 AM
> To: Paul Koning; roweber@acm.org
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: Bit numbering I-D nit
> 
> 
> Paul/Ralph:
> 
> Clearly it appears that putting something an appendix is 
> reaching a high
> degree of consensus.
> One might also, via an example in the appendix alert the 
> reader to this
> mapping. I would find
> it hard that any RFC editor would argue with this informative example.
> 
> -Murali
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Paul Koning
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:04 AM
> To: roweber@acm.org
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: Bit numbering I-D nit
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com> writes:
> 
>  Ralph> I am getting serious flack from the Fibre Channel community
>  Ralph> over the bit numbering requirement in
>  Ralph> http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html.
> 
> I can see why... I didn't realize that the requirement is for the
> confusing old IMB-360 style bit ordering rather than the "powers of
> two" bit ordering that's generally used.  Yuck.
> 
>  Ralph> The problem is that Fibre Channel uses the other bit numbering
>  Ralph> scheme and interoperability woes seem certain unless something
>  Ralph> gets documented in the IETF RFCs.
> 
>  Ralph> Everybody agrees that the body of the FC Frame Encapsulation
>  Ralph> and FCIP drafts can have the IETF bit numbering in the
>  Ralph> figures.
> 
>  Ralph> What they all want is an appendix, or some such thing in the
>  Ralph> drafts/RFCs that translates it all back to the Fibre Channel
>  Ralph> view of reality.
> 
>  Ralph> Such a thing seems destined to make waves in the IETF review
>  Ralph> process, and possibly even be a target for the RFC Editor's
>  Ralph> ax.
> 
> I would say an appendix that documents the mapping to other standards
> is the right thing.  If that gives the RFC editor and/or IESG
> heartburn, it's worth a battle.  Bit order is far too important an
> interop issue to be left undiscussed, and if bureaucratic rules stand
> in the way, those rules MUST change.
> 
> If those sound like strong words, so be it.  I've been burned far too
> many times by bit order confusion to take this sort of thing lightly.
> If there exist two conventions in the community, it's mandatory to
> document that explicitly and clearly state the mapping between the two
> notations, or things will never work.
> 
>    paul
> 
> 
>