RE: FCP over IP item on the agenda

[Black_David@emc.com]

Julian:

Thanks for your comments.  Here's an attempt to provide
the missing background/explanations:

- The ips agenda for Pittsburgh posted on the IETF web site
	is very drafty -- something had to be invented on
	short notice to get the space scheduled.  It is
	definitely subject to change.
- One of the things that needs to be done this week is to
	come up with a real agenda, and the first step is
	agenda bashing on the mailing list -- thanks for
	starting this.  It would be good if the agenda
	were mostly finalized this week.
- The draft charter has been expanded in scope from
	what was previously discussed based on direction from
	the ADs.  Both SCSI and Fibre Channel protocols are
	noted, and a framework document has been added.
	The FC over IP work is at least relevant to the
	framework discussion.  The WG is free to decide
	whether or not to undertake FC over IP, and for
	what purposes.
- There is a draft on the FC over IP work, 
	draft-ietf-ipfc-fcoverip-01.txt
	Despite the "ietf-ipfc" draft name, it may be the
	case that this work is to be pursued in the ips WG
	if at all; further clarification should be forthcoming
	from the ADs.  I appreciate the concern about needing
	the opportunity to review drafts prior to the
	meeting -- hence the goal of getting the agenda
	done this week, complete with draft names.
- Please be careful with terminology - FC over IP
	encapsulates FC-2; this is the basic Fibre Channel
	frame protocol, and is at a lower layer in the FC
	protocol stack than FCP (the Fibre Channel
	encapsulation of SCSI).  At the moment, this is
	not a source of confusion, but a stitch in time ...
Finally, when something is discussed among the design
team, the result is a design team recommendation, which
is not to be confused with WG rough consensus -- IETF
operates by rough consensus of the WG, usually on the WG
mailing list.  One of the things that would be a good idea
in Pittsburgh is to put the design team's recommendations
in front of the audience to check what there is and is not
consensus for.

Thanks,
--David

p.s.  From a procedural viewpoint, I want to encourage
people to do what Julian has done -- if you think there's
something wrong with the way the WG is being run, please
bring it up early and by whatever means you're comfortable
with.  Nobody can promise to make everyone happy all the
time, but I'd at least like to know what people are
concerned about so that I can do something about it.

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909
black_david@emc.com  Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	julian_satran@il.ibm.com [SMTP:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, July 16, 2000 4:48 AM
> To:	Black_David@emc.com
> Cc:	ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject:	FCP over IP item on the agenda
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I've seen the proposed agenda of the BOF on the IETF site.
> I think that we have far less time than we asked for but we may try to
> make
> up for this.
> 
> I was also under the impression that we are going to discuss thing that
> where
> already published on the IETF and /or IPS board.
> 
> Considering the limited time we have - and the fact that we went through
> the FCP
> over IP thing several times in public forums and designer group I wonder
> why
> it appears as a tentative item on your agenda.
> 
> If we have to consider new facts we have to have time to digest them and
> we
> did not see the yet on any forum (unlike all other items).
> 
> I feel very uneasy about having to give up precious time during the only
> face-to-face
> session we have to an item that has yet to be brought to us.
> I think this is also contrary to the IETF practice - or the little I've
> got
> to know about it.
> 
> Again I have nothing against discussing again FCP over IP - but in order
> to see if there
> are arguments for it that we did not consider before I think we need time
> off line
> and getting it a first hearing during the only session we have will do a
> disservice
> to the community.
> 
> Regards,
> Julo
>