Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:14:27 -0800

Hello all,

I would like to formally conclude the WG last call for the FC over IPv6
draft.
The deadline for comments against this draft was Monday, Nov 24.

There were several comments against the draft. Each was discussed on the
mailing list and I believe a satisfactory resolution to each issue was
reached. Based on this, and in the absence of major issue against the draft,
I believe that the FC over IPv6 draft has completed working group last call
successfully.

The author of the draft, Claudio DeSanti, will produce a new draft with the
agreed to changes. The draft will be then made available for review to
insure the issues discussed during the last call period were addressed.  The
draft will then be forwarded on to the Area Directors for consideration by
the IESG for publication as a standards track document.

Thanks to all who reviewed the document and to those who submitted comments
against the document.

Elizabeth Rodriguez
IMSS chair

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

---

From: Robert Snively <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:24:07 -0800

I would appreciate a document that lists the comments
and resolutions as well, making it simpler to verify that
all concerns have been addressed.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
> 
> 
> Hello all,
>

---

From: Claudio DeSanti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:58:14 -0800

Bob,

would a document listing the comments plus a differential version of the
draft be enough?

I ask this because most comments have been editorial, and I believe it is
much easier to follow them in a document having new text in blue and
removed text in red, rather than in a document saying, as an example,
"replaced word 'Introduction' with word 'Summary'", and so
on.

Thanks,

Claudio.

At 02:24 PM 12/1/2003 -0800, Robert Snively wrote:

I would appreciate a document
that lists the comments

and resolutions as well, making it simpler to verify
that

Bob

> I would like to formally conclude the WG last call for
the FC

> over IPv6

> There were several comments against the draft. Each was

> discussed on the

> reached. Based on this, and in the absence of major
issue

> against the draft,

> I believe that the FC over IPv6 draft has completed
working

> group last call

> The author of the draft, Claudio DeSanti, will produce
a new

> draft with the

> insure the issues discussed during the last call period
were

> addressed.  The

> draft will then be forwarded on to the Area Directors
for

> consideration by

> Thanks to all who reviewed the document and to those
who

> submitted comments

---

From: Claudio DeSanti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:17:40 -0800

Bob,

there have been 2 technical comments and 19 editorial comments. I accepted 
all the editorial comments. I attach the list of comments, but I like also 
to review the technical ones, given that I received no feedback on the 
second one.

Technical comment n.1
(submitted by Pekka Savola, Bob Hinden, Fred Templin, Chirayu Patel)

Issue: The Fibre Channel default MTU is far larger than the usual Internet 
MTU. This may
create problems when accessing the Internet from a Fibre Channel network.

Resolution: Add the following text to section 5:

    As the default MTU size far exceeds the message sizes typically used
    in the Internet, an IPv6 over FC implementation SHOULD implement Path
    MTU Discovery [PMTUD], or at least maintain different MTU values for
    on-link and off-link destinations.

    For correct operation in a routed environment, it is critically
    important to configure an appropriate MTU option in Router
    Advertisements.

    For correct operation when mixed media are bridged together, the
    smallest MTU of all the media must be advertised by routers in an MTU
    option. If there are no routers present, this MTU must be manually
    configured in each node which is connected to a medium with a default
    MTU larger than the smallest MTU.

-----

Technical Comment n.2
(submitted by Claudio DeSanti)

Issue: the Source/Target Link-layer address option of Neighbor Discovery 
has currently the
following format:

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |  Length = 2   |           Reserved            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                                                               |
     +-                         N_Port_Name                         -+
     |                                                               |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                   N_Port_ID                   |   Reserved    |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

Swapping in the last word the N_Port_ID and Reserved fields results in a 
format more
similar to what is currently used in other Fibre Channel specifications:

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |  Length = 2   |           Reserved            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                                                               |
     +-                         N_Port_Name                         -+
     |                                                               |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |   Reserved    |                   N_Port_ID                   |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

Resolution: no feedback yet.

I would like to receive feedback on this proposal.
Thanks,

                              Claudio.

At 02:24 PM 12/1/2003 -0800, Robert Snively wrote:

> [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] 
>
> <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss 
>
> >

---

From: Robert Snively <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:04:48 -0800

I am a bit unclear about the resolution of editorial comment #5:
 
5 ==> Receiving an FC Sequence carrying an IPv6 multicast packet MAY
      trigger some additional processing by the Nx_Port if that IPv6 packet
      requires a reply. In this case, if a valid Port Login to the Nx_Port
      that sent the IPv6 multicast packet does not exist, the Nx_Port MUST
      perform such a Port Login, and then use it for the unicast IPv6
      reply. In the case of Neighbor Discovery messages [DISC], the 
      N_Port_ID to which the Port Login is directed is taken from the    
      N_Port_ID field of the Source/Target Link-layer Address option. 
 
Is it needed to specify "unicast" here?  Isn't it at least
theoretically possible that you'd receive a multicast packet, and want
to reply with a multicast packet of your own?  
 
As for your second technical comment, I personally believe that
you are correct and that the new format you propose is better.
However, I do not know if there are any IPv6 ramifications that
must be addressed.  
Robert Snively 

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. 
1745 Technology Drive 
San Jose, CA 95110 

+1 408 333 8135 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Robert Snively
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete

Bob, 

Technical comment n.1 

-----

Technical Comment n.2 

Issue: the Source/Target Link-layer address option of Neighbor Discovery has
currently the 
following format: 

                             Claudio. 

> [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
> Thanks to all who reviewed the document and to those who 
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>

---

From: Claudio DeSanti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:55:34 -0800

Hi Bob,

the resolution of editorial comment 5 has been to add the following 
sentence to the paragraph:

       If a received broadcast FC Sequence carries an IPv6 multicast
       solicitation message [DISC] requiring a multicast reply, the reply
       is sent to the broadcast N_Port_ID 0xFF-FF-FF.

I uploaded the comment resolution document and a differential IPv6 over FC 
spec. on the T11 web site. The two documents are accessible via the 
following URLs:

Comment resolution document: http://www.t11.org/t11/docreg.nsf/ufile/03-780v0
Differential IPv6 over FC spec: 
http://www.t11.org/t11/docreg.nsf/ufile/03-181v4

Pekka Savola already reviewed the differential spec., and he is fine with 
the resolutions.
I will release the final revision by the end of the week.

Thanks,

                               Claudio.