FCEncap Last Call Comment 39

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

Ralph,

Thanks for the response.  Query below.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions Organization
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com

> Comment 39 Technical
> 
>    - I think it might be useful to add a statement in this section along
>      the lines of - If the encapsulating protocol mandates Synchronized
>      operation, the entity MUST NOT accept TCP connections on the well-
>      known port(s) unless the entity is in the Synchronized state.
> 
>    Rejected
> 
>    Since encapsulating protocols are allowed to specify operation in
>    the Unsynchronized state, specifying this level of detail about how
>    Synchronized operation is handled over reaches the bounds of this
>    specification.

This is a query to FCEncap as much as it is to FCIP and iFCP.

I don't claim to be well-versed with the latest FC specs, but my understanding
is that the R_A_TOV represents a hard requirement placed on FC fabrics in terms 
of life expectancy of the FC frames.  If it is indeed so, then could you please
explain how Unsynchronized operation with its non-deterministic frame lifetime
in the "fabric" could be legal for any encapsulating protocol?

I struggled with the same question in my reviewing of FCIP and iFCP as well,
and would appreciate a clarification.