RE: Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI

[Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

27/04/07 10:59

To	Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <nab@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc	<ips@xxxxxxxx>, "Mike Mazarick" <mazarick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Zack Best" <zbest28@xxxxxxxxx>, <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Hall" <ehall@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips