RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI

Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> Fri, 27 April 2007 15:59 UTC

Return-path: <ips-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhSrD-0002kA-C7; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:39 -0400
Received: from ips by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HhSrC-0002k5-GQ for ips-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhSrC-0002jx-6m for ips@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:38 -0400
Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhSrB-0001qS-Md for ips@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:38 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3RFxbqP088042 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:59:37 GMT
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3RFxavS3985466 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:59:36 +0200
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3RFxa3B009631 for <ips@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:59:36 +0200
Received: from d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.114]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3RFxaUH009624; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:59:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA2015E3DBD@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com>
To: "Silvano Gai" <sgai@nuovasystems.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006
From: Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFCCA98F8A.E70C9197-ON852572CA.00568D63-852572CA.0057D925@il.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:34 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12MC102/12/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF71 | November 3, 2006) at 27/04/2007 18:59:36, Serialize complete at 27/04/2007 18:59:36
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c
Cc: Eric Hall <ehall@ehsco.com>, Mike Mazarick <mazarick@bellsouth.net>, nab@linux-iscsi.org, nab@kernel.org, ips@ietf.org, Zack Best <zbest28@yahoo.com>
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0762186336=="
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org

Silavo,

A technical discussion is a technical discussion. It is for this community 
to decide if it want to discuss it or not.
As for moving it - it is again for tis team to decide. I would point out 
that having an Ethernet application layer being discussed in T11 is a 
first and although T11s charter  is "interfaces" it has in the past done 
FCp (a protocol).. FC however is the "product" of an industry consortium. 
T11 will have to "stretch" the one of it's project subgroups (recharter) 
or create a new one. I assume that with the economic might of your 
supporters you may do that. Convincing the technical community that this 
is the right thing to do is a different story.

Julo



"Silvano Gai" <sgai@nuovasystems.com> 
27/04/07 10:59

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <nab@kernel.org>
cc
<ips@ietf.org>rg>, "Mike Mazarick" <mazarick@bellsouth.net>et>, "Zack Best" 
<zbest28@yahoo.com>om>, <nab@linux-iscsi.org>rg>, "Eric Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Subject
RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI







Julo,


> FCoE is asking us to forget all athis and go back and pay the hardware
> price for several more years and ignore the IP-land and nothing that I
> heard convinced me that we should do so. 

FCoE is not asking you (the ips WG) anything.

FCoE is a proposed item for the FC-BB-5 WG of T11. If you have concern
that T11 is making a mistake, I suggest you move this discussion to the
T11.3 reflector.

The FC-BB WG will meet the first time to discuss FCoE in Bloomington, MN
Wednesday June 6th, 2007. 

IMHO, it is a bit premature to discuss the limitations of a technology
that is not yet public or defined.

-- Silvano


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips