RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

["Elizabeth Rodriguez" <egrodriguez@lucent.com>]

(Participant mode)

 

I disagree with this motion. 

We had this discussion back in January, and basically came to the conclusion that Class 1 and Class 4 should not be included, for the reasons that class 1 really cannot be supported across the IP network and class 4 is not really not defined yets, so the codes are not guaranteed to remain constant.  

Even if we do decide to accept Ralph's arguments to include class 1 and class 4 SOF/EOF codes, we cannot take ALL the codes from FC-BB and incorporate them into the FC Encapsulation draft.

Recall, we started out by including all the SOF/EOF codes from FC-BB-2.  We reevaluated in January 2001, when we analyzed the codes themselves.

Several that we excluded I think were valid (e.g. for class 1 and class 4), but others were completely bogus and undefined anywhere other than in FC-BB.

We cannot just blindly accept those codes.

 

If this motion is considered, we need to reopen that evaluation made in the January interim meeting and make a determination as to what codes need to be included in FC Common Encapsulation, and make sure not to include invalid codes.

 

Thanks,

 

Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----
From: Franco Travostino [mailto:travos@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:32 AM
To: ENDL_TX@computer.org; IPS Reflector
Cc: Murali Rajagopal; Elizabeth Rodriguez
Subject: Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

I agree with this motion.

You wrote under another heading: "Vague may be vague but it also is not unnecessarily constraining." What a troubling statement was this. I'm glad we now appear to be moving towards a constructive end after all.

thanks
-franco

At 08:15 AM 11/7/2001, Ralph Weber wrote:

Upon further reflection, I think the right thing to do
is to list all the SOF/EOF codes defined in FC-BB in
the FC Encapsulation draft.

FIRST

There is nothing in the FC Encapsulation draft other
than to omission of Class 1 SOF/EOF codes that prevents
encapsulating FC Class 1 frames for TCP transport.
Sure, a TCP ULP that is smarter than anything anybody
has thought about will be required to do it.  BUT
there is (or should be) nothing the the FC Encapsulation
draft that prevents such a protocol from being invented.
AND the FC Encapsulation draft specifically says that
you need the wisdom of some other protocol document in
order to get any use out of the FC Encapsulation draft.
Why force the mad man that devises a way to transport
Class 1 over TCP/IP to revise the FC Encapsulation
SOF/EOF tables?

SECOND

It is conceivable that a future version of iFCP
(or maybe even FCIP) might want to support Class 4.
Again, there is nothing in the FC Encapsulation
draft that prevents this, except the omission
of the SOF/EOF codes.

FINALLY

I believe that the elimination of all SOF/EOF
codes other than Class 2, Class 3, AND CLASS F
is a hold over from the early FCIP work, before
the FC Encapsulation was split into a separate
draft. I believe that decision was right for
FCIP but wrong for an FC Encapsulation intended
to be used by ALL FC protocols running over
TCP/IP.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ralph...