RE: Request to exclude FC over IP from storage over IP working group charter

["VonStamwitz, Paul" <paulv@corp.adaptec.com>]

[somesh]
> > You are talking about (I am making an assumption here so correct me if
> > this is not the case) a bridge here (which typically would mean storage
> > on IP on one-side and FCP on the other). 
> 
[Scott]
> that is not correct
> I assume that vendors will innovate and a logical innovation is to 
> move the FC/IP gateway into the drive itself
> 

Scott,
I'm not sure where this is heading. You make an interesting point, one that
was not brought up at the Pittsburgh meeting (which only went as far as
transparent gateways bridging multiple FC subnets over IP.) If I understand,
you can envision a native FC HBA carrying on a conversation, through an
FC/IP gateway, with a drive directly attached to an IP network. Since the
drive is IP capable, it makes sense that an IPS HBA should be able to
converse with it as well. Let's close the loop. Why shouldn't the IPS HBA
not be capable of conversing with a native FC drive through the gateway?

Are you suggesting (dare I ask...)
FCP/IP = IPS?

-Paul