RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

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

Charles, Franco
(and others interested in iFCP)
Murali's statement below does apply to the FCIP draft.
Do you feel the statement also applies to iFCP?

Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Rajagopal [mailto:muralir@lightsand.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:01 PM
To: Charles Monia; IPS Reflector
Subject: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes


On the specific topic of supported SOF and EOF codes the ietf documents
should be driven by the specification provided in the *most relevant *
document which in this case happens to be FC-BB-2 ant FC-MI.  FC-MI
should
be kept out of this.

If we simply accept to adopt the SOF and EOF codes listed for BB-2 the
problem is solved. FYI, BB-2 only supports Class 2, 3, and F codes.
I don't see why we are making a big deal about this.

-Murali

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Charles Monia
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:33 PM
To: IPS Reflector
Subject: RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

Hi Folks:

> David's observation is correct. FC-MI rev 1.8 (28 Sept 2001)
> prohibits Class 1 and I can find no letter ballot comments
> asking that it be reinstated.

The last time I checked, the FC-MI spec was not a "standards track"
document
(to use IETF terminology). If that's still the case, is FC-MI's
prohibition
of class 1 a sufficient basis for precluding class 1 support in the
encapsulation spec?

Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Weber [mailto:ralphoweber@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:52 AM
> To: IPS Reflector
> Cc: Black_David@emc.com
> Subject: Re: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes
>
>
> David's observation is correct. FC-MI rev 1.8 (28 Sept 2001)
> prohibits Class 1 and I can find no letter ballot comments
> asking that it be reinstated.
>
> Therefore, I am forced to agree with David. Class 1 MUST NOT
> be mentioned in the FC Encapsulation draft. If necessary, a
> note discussing interoperability and FC-MI can be added.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ralph...
>
> Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>
> > FC-MI was going to prohibit Class 1 last time I checked.  Since the
> > I in FC-MI stands for "Interoperability", this seems like a
> reasonable
> > rationale for excluding Class 1 service.
> >
> > --David
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> > black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>