Subject: [Gen-art] Re: draft-ietf-imss-ip-over-fibre-channel-03.txt is Ready for publication

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:29:48 -0800

Hi Claudio,

Many thanks for the quick response, and for the clarifications.  No 
need for any edits.

Lakshminath

At 06:50 PM 11/30/2005, Claudio DeSanti wrote:
>Hi Lakshminath,
>
>the reason for the "MUST" on multicast is that datagram multicast 
>distribution is defined in Fibre Channel only for Class 3, so it 
>does not make any sense to use other Classes for multicast traffic.
>Use of other Classes is instead possible for unicast traffic, and 
>for backward compatibility reasons we don't want to completely close 
>the door to them (yet).
>
>Coming to the nits you suggested, the two "must" in section 4.8 
>express operational requirements, not protocol requirements, and 
>this is the reason why they are lower case. The "must" in section 
>2.2 is not a protocol requirement as well, because section 2.2 is 
>just an overview of how Fibre Channel operates. If it hurts, it can 
>be replaced by "have to".
>
>The annexes are informative, and all the "must" there just express 
>how Fibre Channel works, they are not expressing IP over Fibre 
>Channel protocol requirements. In a similar manner, the two 
>"recommended" occur in informative sections of the document, and 
>this is why they are lower case.
>
>Thanks for your review,
>
>                                 Claudio.
>
>
>Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>>draft-ietf-imss-ip-over-fibre-channel-03.txt is ready for publication.
>>But, I do have one question.
>>First, I must admit I don't know a whole lot about this area.  The 
>>document is well written and received a good amount of 
>>review.  However, I am curious about a collection of MUSTs and 
>>SHOULDs and hence the question(s).
>>Section 2.3 says "Class 3 is recommended for IPv6, IPv4 and ARP 
>>(see section 4.3)."
>>Section 4.3 in turn says "The following types of packets MUST be 
>>mapped in Class 3 FC frames:"
>>That list contains IPv4 multicast/broadcast, IPv6 multicast, and 
>>all control traffic (unicast, broadcast or multicast).
>>
>>Other IPv6 and IPv4 packets (i.e., unicast IP packets carrying data
>>    traffic) SHOULD be mapped in Class 3 FC frames as well. Support for
>>    reception of IPv4 or IPv6 packets mapped in FC frames of any Class
>>    other than Class 3 is OPTIONAL; receivers MAY ignore them.
>>
>>My question is why a "MUST" on the multicast and SHOULD on 
>>unicast?  Is this for backward compatibility? (I did take a quick 
>>look at 2625 and that seems to allow other classes for unicast: 
>>classes 1 and 2 ?).
>>Nits: There are a couple of instances of the word 
>>"recommended."  Should those be "RECOMMENDED?"  There are also a 
>>couple of instances of "must" as well.
>>regards,
>>Lakshminath

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Claudio DeSanti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:19 -0800

Hi Lakshminath,

the reason for the "MUST" on multicast is that datagram multicast 
distribution is defined in Fibre Channel only for Class 3, so it does 
not make any sense to use other Classes for multicast traffic.
Use of other Classes is instead possible for unicast traffic, and for 
backward compatibility reasons we don't want to completely close the 
door to them (yet).

Coming to the nits you suggested, the two "must" in section 4.8 express 
operational requirements, not protocol requirements, and this is the 
reason why they are lower case. The "must" in section 2.2 is not a 
protocol requirement as well, because section 2.2 is just an overview of 
how Fibre Channel operates. If it hurts, it can be replaced by "have to".

The annexes are informative, and all the "must" there just express how 
Fibre Channel works, they are not expressing IP over Fibre Channel 
protocol requirements. In a similar manner, the two "recommended" occur 
in informative sections of the document, and this is why they are lower 
case.

Thanks for your review,

                                 Claudio.

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> document is well written and received a good amount of review.  However, 
> I am curious about a collection of MUSTs and SHOULDs and hence the 
> question(s).
> 
> Section 2.3 says "Class 3 is recommended for IPv6, IPv4 and ARP (see 
> section 4.3)."
> 
> Section 4.3 in turn says "The following types of packets MUST be mapped 
> in Class 3 FC frames:"
> 
> That list contains IPv4 multicast/broadcast, IPv6 multicast, and all 
> control traffic (unicast, broadcast or multicast).
> 
> 
> My question is why a "MUST" on the multicast and SHOULD on unicast?  Is 
> this for backward compatibility? (I did take a quick look at 2625 and 
> that seems to allow other classes for unicast: classes 1 and 2 ?).
> 
> Nits: There are a couple of instances of the word "recommended."  Should 
> those be "RECOMMENDED?"  There are also a couple of instances of "must" 
> as well.
> 
> regards,
> Lakshminath
>