SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: FCencap: Missing SOF/EOF characters



    Ralph:
    
    Missed Class F in the slippery slopes of the wonderful world of FC Classes!
    
    -Murali
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Ralph
    Weber
    Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:49 AM
    To: IPS Reflector
    Cc: Murali Rajagopal; Franco Travostino
    Subject: Re: FCencap: Missing SOF/EOF characters
    
    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
    
    


Home

Last updated: Wed Nov 07 13:17:38 2001
7616 messages in chronological order