RE: FCP over IP item on the agenda and thje charter

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

David,

We will certainly bring to the table our considerations and why we choose
what we choose.
I think this should be a 15 min point on the agenda.

Many of us would also like to see a 30 minutes discussion on each of the
following
The separate data/command channels approach with the Kalman Meth proposed
twist,
security and authentication - details about how it works and how it should
be worded,
recovery how it works and what is the minimum required.


The draft you suggested we look at is not entirely relevant to our group .
It is a networking layer
on another networking layer. The IP area is there territory this should be
discussed (if somewhere).

There is also a growing concern (expressed already in a  previous message)
to the community
versus commercial value to some industry players of the FCP inclusion.

I strongly favor taking it out.

Also about the charter - due to mail failures I got it late. It is good and
in covers the whole
area. The time table should however focus on getting out the things that
require the longest "gestation" first - the transport mapping. The others
are at least as important and if IESG decides that 1 group is enough to
cover them all (I am not sure it has to be) then we should schedule the
to activities in areas late discovery, management etc. to follow.

I  am also not completely confident that I understand the "framework"
stuff?
Is it a requirements document?
Is it a recipe to derive a myriad of incompatible protocols?
In those areas that cover basic transport issues is framework is not a
unifying thing but rather
a way of explaining the differences when they arise.
Do we want this? Do we really need this.

I wonder why you used so little of the initial, modest and carefully worded
charter we suggested
for the first phase 3 months and added to it for later stages discovery and
management.

Did you get to have a look at it? Do you what it reposted?

Regards,
Julo



Black_David@emc.com on 17/07/2000 18:04:31

Please respond to Black_David@emc.com

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Black_David@emc.com
cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  RE: FCP over IP item on the agenda




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
>