Re: [PWE3] fc-encap draft: Forthcoming reference changes

"Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com> Sun, 01 April 2012 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2EF21F876F for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6wJ4CRoqEmIM for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8054011E8085 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1076175ghb.31 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=pxjAvze4oIysDnJytnka9c2XrCBhU7gwH6c19WWji6U=; b=Mcl/p7VT1UbVFpd0feCvgwPVReqqqh5Lu4irbDlM+UeCsQ7N7ik/Jdyu20MIII1zWS R/rvxCZx99NHR4ssF/wZt2fug6RDCBt4micvJQsrX1S9xYcIWJ4se9xqEhzqtdTb4ct6 GLmNYdoh/PqRG3rhCnqrfuFWJobt8hwPoO7fNtpFuH/Hstu3k8FRDFjyUhRsJmAzwulf jpDFwn9gpFb4GkuEFKiSIJ+Oxe+irWpj74bO6Hk2ktk0nc58u2fSXT7DfMmjm2sPsCVl 72OB33HuI0k4/i5OlWctq66qVpP5NvEOM2TCzPJS+PcKhGT/srgOGFhtFrJLwlnJVlv0 +31A==
Received: by 10.236.115.3 with SMTP id d3mr4992078yhh.49.1333318835938; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.22.196 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2E807F9@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2E807F9@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:20:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK+d4xuCcnYqFBPX8yMm=CtprWj1676kz8pvMMBT-=Bwj+9NgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: david.black@emc.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf303bf54e96a3c504bca57b86"
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] fc-encap draft: Forthcoming reference changes
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:20:37 -0000

David,

Thanks much for the update and keeping on top of this.

Cheers,
Andy

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM, <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

> This is a heads-up that the editing changes needed to get
> draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
> published are going to be a little more involved than I've lead the WG to
> expect
> in the past.
>
> A reminder of the situation: The Fibre Channel pseudowire (FC PW) is
> specified by
> a pair of related specifications, the IETF fc-encap draft, and an FC-BB-*
> spec from
> INCITS T11 (the Fibre Channel standards body).  When we got the fc-encap
> draft
> finished, we found ourselves badly out of sync with T11 - the draft
> contains a
> normative reference to [FC-BB-6] which will not be published as a standard
> for a
> while to come (2013, maybe).  As a result, the fc-encap draft has been
> stuck in
> reference wait at the RFC Editor (all other editing is done) for most of a
> year.
>
> In order to deal with this situation, T11 has prepared a new standard that
> contains
> their portion of the FC PW spec, FC-BB-5 Amendment 1 [FC-BB-5/AM1].  That
> standard
> has now cleared its final technical approval stage and can be normatively
> referenced
> (will be actually published in the next few months, but all the stages
> from here are
> entirely procedural).  The original plan was to simply change the
> normative [FC-BB-6]
> reference in the fc-encap draft to [FC-BB-5/AM1], but ...
>
> FC-BB-6 is a large specification that includes other FC encapsulations in
> addition
> to the FC-PW.  In contrast, FC-BB-5 Amendment 1 has been cut down to just
> the FC PW
> material.  In looking at the fc-encap draft, I've discovered that FC-BB-6
> is cited
> both normatively and informatively in the text - the normative citations
> are for
> the T11 portion of the FC PW, whereas the informative citations are for
> other FC
> encapsulations (e.g., FCIP).  Therefore what I intend to do is:
> - Move the existing [FC-BB-6] normative reference to an informative "work
>        in progress" reference.
> - Add a new normative reference to [FC-BB-5/AM1]
> - Examine every current citation of [FC-BB-6] to determine whether it is
>        normative for the FC PW (and needs to be changed to [FC-BB-5/AM1]
>        vs. informative for other encapsulations (and needs to remain as a
>        citation of [FC-BB-6].
> The resulting editing instructions will take a bit of time to prepare, but
> should
> go to the RFC Editor sometime this week.
>
> Thanks,
> --David (as one of the editors of the fc-encap draft, and T11's liaison to
> IETF).
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>