|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] FCIP: 12/19 Teleconference MinutesMinutes submitted by Kha Sin Teow, Brocade Roll call: Andy Neil, Ralph elizabeth, jim nelson raj anil ken hirata, milan merhar, brett ketcham, cnt venkat, dave peterson khasin bill krieg don fraser Agenda ------ - SF Security -Model -draft comments 1) Security - short frame - D. Black's response - ok if the nonce is 64-bit as mentioned in Ralph's write-up. But he (David) reserved the right to review the detailed description. 2) IESG Plenary Report from Elizabeth - one person expressed a very strong objection to the principle of design team (authors) - another comment about should be single author; no long author list 3) Comments to the latest docs - deadline - FC-BB meeting is in 1st week of Feb last call of FC-IP cannot proceed until until BB approval (plenary) - why is this an issue since Annex E has at least 12-13 items that are NOT completely stable? (Venkat) - Murali pointed out that the procedure is that BB-2 needs to be approved during the BB meeting; not outside - If IPS Chairs has issues with BB-2 not procedurally approved the short frame proposal just yet and not pass the last call, we should try to go with the last call. 4) Model - (Andy) model that Murali sent on on Dec 19 afternoon - Andy objects to the model of suggesting that there is one VE_Port to multi-link to another VE_POrt (not consistent with Fig 4 of the fcip draft); the intent of the model is not to imply that (Venkat and Ralph and Murali); so maybe the model should be changed editorially or some verbage be added to BB; so andy is ok with it then other then editorial mod. VE_Port and LEP - one to one - Anil: draft makes no mention of mutliple fcip entity pairs - Ralph is leary about adding more varbage; - Murali will post the model to the T11 reflector since there has been no visibility since Austin - 598v2 - show BPort and E_Port interaction also deal with talk to VE_Port. Need to understand B_Port. FCIP doesn't talk about B_port and E_Port.; no need to - that's FC entities problem and the intelligence behind which is covered in BB 5) comments on the draft - figure 5: need to add text about the "bundling" of the 3 tcp connections. - Murali: need to state/explain about multiple fcip links between multiple pairs of fcip entities; Ralph to come up with something in 5.2. - Anil: left over about IP address - to be replace with "FC-IP Identifier" do we need FC-IP Identifier? -Bob Snively to explain why the Id is necessary; also why the short frame - src has wwpn and fcip-id but dest don't have the fcip-id. would WWPN be sufficient? - Don will review all occurances of "close the (TCP) connection" and determine if it is appropropriate to add a phrase similar to "close and report back to the FC fabric". This is to keep the FCIP work in line with proposed changes to FC-BB-2 that will require notification from a gateawy on loss of the intersite linl. - suggestion to delete (6) from section 4. 6) Next Meeting: Jan 2/2002 - next meeting - to be hosted by Don
Home Last updated: Sat Dec 22 04:17:44 2001 8195 messages in chronological order |