RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

See below

<Snip..snip>
> No, the world does not need two standards and the IPS WG 
> should force the
> issue.  While companies will always do their own, the mission 
> of a standard
> committee is to find one and only one standard to make everyone's life
> easier.  Failing to do so does not serve this community.
> 
> If FCIP is good enough, why do I need iFCP?  Do I really need the
> scalability of 4 billion fibre channel nodes visible to me?  
> For Internet
> domain names I may need IPv6, but, for storage devices?  
> 24-bits of D_ID
> with 16 million nodes are a lot of addresses.  I do 
> understand perfectly if
> one wishes to dominate the FC switch market.  As a consumer, 
> this is not my
> concern unless one can provide me alternatives with a much 
> lower costs.

<Remainder deleted>

Where have we heard the above line of reasoning before?
Does it sound familiar to...."why do we need OSPF if we have RIP?"
..."why do we need IP/MPLS if we already have ATM?"...."why do we
need DiffServ when we already have a standard for IP precedence?"
.... "why do we need Qualcomm's CDMA when we have GSM?"....
"why do we need iSCSI when we have Fibre Channel?"

If the technology is superior and/or provides additional
capabilities, it should be admitted to IETF.  Admitting only
the first standard to come along is a recipe for mediocrity.
The Internet would not be what it is today if the IETF were
to operate according to this standard.  It hasn't in the past,
and it should not start today with the IPS WG.

iFCP provides truly superior capabilities to the alternative
technologies, and may prove to be disruptive to the business plans
of some companies.  I believe therein lies the real reason why
some object to its admission to the IPS.

Josh