|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Bit numbering I-D nitPaul/Ralph: Clearly it appears that putting something an appendix is reaching a high degree of consensus. One might also, via an example in the appendix alert the reader to this mapping. I would find it hard that any RFC editor would argue with this informative example. -Murali -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Koning Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:04 AM To: roweber@acm.org Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Bit numbering I-D nit >>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com> writes: Ralph> I am getting serious flack from the Fibre Channel community Ralph> over the bit numbering requirement in Ralph> http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html. I can see why... I didn't realize that the requirement is for the confusing old IMB-360 style bit ordering rather than the "powers of two" bit ordering that's generally used. Yuck. Ralph> The problem is that Fibre Channel uses the other bit numbering Ralph> scheme and interoperability woes seem certain unless something Ralph> gets documented in the IETF RFCs. Ralph> Everybody agrees that the body of the FC Frame Encapsulation Ralph> and FCIP drafts can have the IETF bit numbering in the Ralph> figures. Ralph> What they all want is an appendix, or some such thing in the Ralph> drafts/RFCs that translates it all back to the Fibre Channel Ralph> view of reality. Ralph> Such a thing seems destined to make waves in the IETF review Ralph> process, and possibly even be a target for the RFC Editor's Ralph> ax. I would say an appendix that documents the mapping to other standards is the right thing. If that gives the RFC editor and/or IESG heartburn, it's worth a battle. Bit order is far too important an interop issue to be left undiscussed, and if bureaucratic rules stand in the way, those rules MUST change. If those sound like strong words, so be it. I've been burned far too many times by bit order confusion to take this sort of thing lightly. If there exist two conventions in the community, it's mandatory to document that explicitly and clearly state the mapping between the two notations, or things will never work. paul
Home Last updated: Thu Mar 21 13:18:12 2002 9247 messages in chronological order |