Re: FCencap: Missing SOF/EOF characters

[Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com>]

Murali, Franco,

I thank you both for pointing out just how slippery a slope this is.

Until receiving your e-mail messages I had been under the misimpression
that Class F was an important part of the FCIP mission.  :-)

Vague may be vague but it also is not unnecessarily constraining.

All the best.

Ralph...

Murali Rajagopal wrote:

> How about stating something that we do support in the Scope section:
>
> "This document only considers encapsulation for only FC Classes 2 and 3."
>
> -Murali
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Franco Travostino
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 11:31 AM
> To: ENDL_TX@computer.org; IPS Reflector
> Subject: Re: FCencap: Missing SOF/EOF characters
>
> At 12:54 PM 11/6/2001, Ralph Weber wrote:
>
>>   "This document describes common mechanisms for the transport
>>   of Fibre Channel frames over an IP network within the limitations
>>   of service provided by an IP network. The topics described in
>>   this document include the encapsulation format and a mechanism
>>   for enforcing the Fibre Channel frame lifetime limits."
>
>
> This proposed text comes a tad closer, but it's cryptic still.
>
>
>> I am NOT willing to discuss Fibre Channel Classes in the draft
>> because to do so would require adding a definition of the term.
>> Fibre Channel Classes are not discussed in the draft as it is
>> currently written.
>
>
> I agree that a definition/discussion would be way inappropriate here. 
> A T11 citation should do the trick instead. We already have a sentence
> like "The format and content of an FC frame is described in the FC 
> standards (e.g., FC-FS [3], FC-SW-2 [4], and FC-PI [5])." I don't see 
> a problem with writing  "Scope is limited to FC Class 2 and 3,  which 
> are described in the FC standard ([x]), and then adding [x] and the 
> authoritative T11 document to Section 7 References. This direct and 
> simple.
>
> -franco