RE: FCencap: List ALL SOF/EOF codes

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

(Chair hat on)

Let me jump back in here, and summarize as I see it:

Codes from FC-BB cannot be taken intact, since there are invalid codes
in that specification.
Codes initially trimmed in January of this year, but Ralph correctly
points out, that was prior to the formation of the FC encapsulation
draft (e.g. discussion pertained directly to FCIP; did not take into
consideration iFCP)

That said, we can modify the current FC encapsulation draft to include
other classes of service, if we so choose.

We can choose to 
1) Keep the table as is.  
Note: The current SOF/EOF codes defined in the FC encapsulation draft
match the currently defined FC-BB-2 subset.

2) Add Class 1 codes
Note:  FC-MI (technical report, not a standard) does not support Class
1.
Note2: Practicality of Class 1 over IP questioned.

3) Add Class 4 codes
Note:  Class 4 work is ongoing, but SOF/EOF codes currently defined for
class 4 unchanged.

4) Add both class 1 and class 4 codes

I would like to solicit input from everyone on what codes people feel
should be included in the FC encapsulation draft.
Note:  Drafts following FC encapsulation may restrict classes of service
that draft supports.

Thanks,

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
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>