RE: Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI

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" <[email protected]> 
27/04/07 10:59

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email protected]>
cc
<[email protected]>, "Mike Mazarick" <[email protected]>, "Zack Best" 
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "Eric Hall" <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips