From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:17:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05550 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwLm-0007B5-5H for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:17:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1MH2KB027585 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwLl-0007Aq-TO for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05492 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwLj-0003Ve-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:16:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwLj-0003Va-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:16:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwLk-0007Ai-QJ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwL3-00074M-5C for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:16:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05410 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:16:01 -0500 (EST) From: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwL0-0003Tu-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:16:14 -0500 Received: from mail.dothill.com ([155.254.128.7] helo=dothill.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwL0-0003Tj-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:16:14 -0500 Received: from exchange.artecon.com (exchange [206.6.182.75]) by dothill.com (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hB1ME4Wu019926 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.artecon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <42RVR2GY>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:14:28 -0800 Message-ID: <6E76A781C4D7D511A0C000105A209B59041B5557@exchange.artecon.com> To: imss@ietf.org Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:14:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:26:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06617 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwUU-0007aM-Ac for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:26:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1MQ2ZE029158 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwUU-0007aD-6m for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06540 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwUR-0003vp-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:25:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwUR-0003vm-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:25:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwUT-0007Zx-1C; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwTh-0007Z9-EO for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:25:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06406 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwTe-0003sM-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:25:10 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=hammer.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwTR-0003oC-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:24:57 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-c2.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-c2.brocade.com [192.168.126.35]) by hammer.brocade.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hB1MOGt21806; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by hq-ex-c2.corp.brocade.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:24:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Robert Snively To: "'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'" , imss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:24:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3B859.D60EEBFD" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B859.D60EEBFD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com > [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com] > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM > To: imss@ietf.org > Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete > > > 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 > imss@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B859.D60EEBFD Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete

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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com
> [mailto:elizabeth.rodrigu= ez@dothill.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: imss@ietf.org
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 = complete
>
>
> 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
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss=
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B859.D60EEBFD-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:59:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08335 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0T-0000ti-7t for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Mx59q003435 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0T-0000tB-03 for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08235 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:58:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0Q-0004aG-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:02 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0P-0004aA-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQx0Q-0007V2-Jt for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0P-0000s9-IF; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0G-0000rJ-9h for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:58:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08220 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0D-0004Zv-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:58:49 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0D-0004Ze-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:58:49 -0500 Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB1MwHAt006715; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cds-w2k02.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-49-67.cisco.com [171.71.49.67]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AMZ13766; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:58:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031201144818.02953a98@mira-sjcd-1.cisco.com> X-Sender: cds@mira-sjcd-1.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:58:14 -0800 To: Robert Snively From: Claudio DeSanti Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Cc: "'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'" , imss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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
all concerns have been addressed.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com
> [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: imss@ietf.org
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
>
>
> 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
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
>
_______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 21:22:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16788 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0As-0004xG-O9 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:22:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22M2Kp019046 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0As-0004x7-Ig for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16776 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0Ap-0007ZF-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:21:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0Ap-0007ZC-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:21:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0Ar-0004wz-7m; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0AA-0004wf-M5 for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:21:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16769 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0A3-0007Z3-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:21:11 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0A1-0007YX-00 for imss@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:21:10 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2003 18:23:28 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB22Kbw5028422; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from cds-w2k02.andiamo.com (dhcp-171-69-118-57.cisco.com [171.69.118.57]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AMZ33291; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:20:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031201171935.064768e8@mira-sjcd-1.cisco.com> X-Sender: cds@andiamo.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:17:40 -0800 To: Robert Snively From: Claudio DeSanti Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Cc: "'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'" , imss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_707639922==_" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=====================_707639922==_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_707639922==_.ALT" --=====================_707639922==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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: >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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com > > > [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com] > > > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM > > To: imss@ietf.org > > Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete > > > > > > 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 > > imss@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss > > > --=====================_707639922==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" 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:

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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com
> [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: imss@ietf.org
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
>
>
> 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
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
>
--=====================_707639922==_.ALT-- --=====================_707639922==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IETF_IPv6_Comments.txt" 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 issues 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 may result 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. -------------- Editorial Comments (all accepted or clarified) 1 ==> Introduction is pretty much identical to the abstract. This is typically considered a bad idea, and shows that either Abstract or Introduction has not been fully utilized and properly written. 2 ==> - The format of its N_Port_Name MUST be one of 0x1, 0x2, 0x5, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF. Other Name_Identifier formats are not acceptable to support IPv6; reword to: - The format of its N_Port_Name MUST be one of 0x1, 0x2, 0x5, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF. IPv6 support for other Name_Identifier formats is outside the scope of this specification. 3 ==> the doc is not clear (at least to someone not well versed with FC) what Information Unit refers to 4 ==> should maybe specify that Reserved fields MUST be zero when transmitting, and MUST be ignored when receiving (the typical MBZ rule) ? 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? 6 ==> ID-nits: no references in the abstract, please. 7 ==> maybe reword the title to: "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Fibre Channel" (more similar to other IPv6-over-FOO document names) ? 8 ==> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. I'd put that at the end of the Introduction section; that's where it normally resides. 9 ==> Warning to readers familiar with Fibre Channel: both Fibre Channel and IETF standards use the same byte transmission order. However, the bit numbering is different. See Appendix C for guidance. I'd rather place this in the Introduction. 10 ==> - F_CTL, SEQ_ID, SEQ_CNT, OX_ID, RX_ID: see section 10, section 11, and [FC-FS] for additional requirements. D_ID, S_ID, and Parameter were not described here. 11 ==> Claudio DeSanti s/Claudio/C./ (that's just a convention, the same at the bottom of each page :-) 12 ==> transmission words that act as frame delimiters. The CRC is 4-octets s/4-/4 / 13 ==> The FC Header is 24-octets long and contains several fields s/24-/24 / 14 ==> ordering, that corresponds to the standard network byte order or s/,// (or use "which", typically don't use comma before "that") 15 ==> Stateless Autoconfiguration s/Auto/Address Auto/ (similar elsewhere; the formal name is "stateless address autoconfiguration") 16 ==> Generating an Interface ID from a EUI-64 mapped N_Port_Name s/a EUI-64/an EUI-64/ (similar elsewhere) 17 ==> An Exchange Responder is not required to assign RX_IDs. If a RX_ID of s/a RX_ID/an RX_ID/ (similar elsewhere?) 18 ==> The Exchange Originator MAY terminate Exchanges by setting the F_CTL LS bit [FC-FS]. Exchanges MAY be torn down by the Exchange Originator or Exchange Responder by using the ABTS protocol. IPv6 Exchanges spell out ABTS, maybe refer to it (the only time the term is used in this document) 19 ==> From an IPv6 point of view, a Fibre Channel network, built with any combination of the FC topologies described above, is an IPv6 Link [IPv6] connecting any IPv6-capable Nx_Port acting as an IPv6 Interface. reword to: From an IPv6 point of view, a Fibre Channel network, built with any combination of the FC topologies described above, is an IPv6 Link [IPv6]. IPv6-capable Nx_Ports are what [IPv6] calls Interfaces. --=====================_707639922==_-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:06:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23759 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARD2M-0005mP-On for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:06:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2G66cs022213 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:06:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARD2M-0005mC-Is for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:06:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23721 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARD2J-0002xS-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:06:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARD2J-0002xP-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:06:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARD2H-0005lS-De; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARD1s-0005kR-R1 for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23698 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARD1q-0002wU-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:05:34 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=hammer.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARD1p-0002vk-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:05:33 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-c2.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-c2.brocade.com [192.168.126.35]) by hammer.brocade.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hB2G4wt00394; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by hq-ex-c2.corp.brocade.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:04:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: Robert Snively To: "'Claudio DeSanti'" , Robert Snively Cc: "'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'" , imss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:04:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3B8EE.02888BFA" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B8EE.02888BFA Content-Type: text/plain 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 rsnively@brocade.com -----Original Message----- From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:cds@andiamo.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 PM To: Robert Snively Cc: 'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'; imss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete 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: 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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com > [ mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com ] > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM > To: imss@ietf.org > Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete > > > 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 > imss@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B8EE.02888BFA Content-Type: text/html
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
rsnively@brocade.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:cds@andiamo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Robert Snively
Cc: 'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'; imss@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete

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:

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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com
> [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: imss@ietf.org
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
>
>
> 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
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B8EE.02888BFA-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:38:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25691 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDXW-0008KG-BF for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GcHBQ032003 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:38:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDXV-0008JS-9j for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25635 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDXR-0003lc-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDXQ-0003lW-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDXN-0008I9-Ez; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDWp-0008AB-71 for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:37:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25587 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDWo-0003k6-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:37:34 -0500 Received: from [63.170.40.2] (helo=epexch01.qlogic.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDWn-0003je-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:37:33 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [imss] IPv6 over FC comments [Re: Reminder: IMSS Working Group last call on IPv6 over Fibre Channel Draft Ends Monday Nov 24] Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:37:12 -0600 Message-ID: <09CE96B577D48C46A1209AAA16E06F3EDA2899@EPEXCH01.qlogic.org> Thread-Topic: Re: [imss] IPv6 over FC comments [Re: Reminder: IMSS Working Group last call on IPv6 over Fibre Channel Draft Ends Monday Nov 24] Thread-Index: AcO48oPk3ddtXZcrTiWu723MU7axVw== From: "Craig W. Carlson" To: , , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cluadio, Elizabeth, In a previous e-mail Cluadio made the following recommendation. This should be included in the final draft since this is the way all Fibre Channel N_Port ID fields are specified. ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length =3D 2 | Reserved | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | | +- N_Port_Name -+ | | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | N_Port_ID | Reserved | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ =3D=3D> should maybe specify that Reserved fields MUST be zero when transmitting, and MUST be ignored when receiving (the typical MBZ rule) ? Ok. Additionally, I recently noticed that swapping the last reserved field with the N_Port_ID field could slightly facilitate the processing in 32 bit processors, because the N_Port_ID field would be in the "right" place to directly load the word in a register. The option would be as follows: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length =3D 2 | Reserved | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | | +- N_Port_Name -+ | | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Reserved | N_Port_ID | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ Any comment on this idea? ... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Craig W. Carlson mailto:craig.carlson@qlogic.com QLogic Corporation (952) 932-4064 6321 Bury Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 13:57:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01997 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFhm-0001Hf-LN for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2Iv26u004929 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFhm-0001HQ-Fh for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01978 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFhk-00069J-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:57:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFhj-00069F-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:56:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFhl-0001HI-Dl; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFhJ-0001Gu-Dy for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:56:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01944 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:56:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFhG-00068T-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:56:30 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFhF-00067d-00 for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:56:29 -0500 Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB2ItvAt014848; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from cds-w2k02.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-49-67.cisco.com [171.71.49.67]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AMZ83353; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:55:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031202104444.02d42258@mira-sjcd-1.cisco.com> X-Sender: cds@mira-sjcd-1.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:55:34 -0800 To: Robert Snively From: Claudio DeSanti Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete Cc: "'Claudio DeSanti'" , Robert Snively , "'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'" , imss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_767358132==_.ALT" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=====================_767358132==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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. At 08:04 AM 12/2/2003 -0800, Robert Snively wrote: >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 >rsnively@brocade.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:cds@andiamo.com] >Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 PM >To: Robert Snively >Cc: 'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'; imss@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete > >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: > >>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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com >> > >> [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com] >> >> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM >> > To: imss@ietf.org >> > Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > imss@ietf.org >> > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss >> >> > --=====================_767358132==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" 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.



At 08:04 AM 12/2/2003 -0800, Robert Snively wrote:
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
rsnively@brocade.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:cds@andiamo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Robert Snively
Cc: 'elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com'; imss@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
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:

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: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com
> [mailto:elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: imss@ietf.org
> Subject: [imss] WG last call for FC over IPv6 complete
>
>
> 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
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
>
--=====================_767358132==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 15:46:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13823 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0MM-0008E7-Gh for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4Kk2ha031622 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0MM-0008Dx-Df for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13810 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0MK-00004W-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0MK-00004S-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0ML-0008Df-1U; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0Lr-0008DA-TO for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:45:31 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13795; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:45:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312042045.PAA13795@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: imss@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:45:16 -0500 Subject: [imss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Fibre Channel Author(s) : C. Desanti Filename : draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2003-12-4 This document specifies the way of encapsulating IPv6 packets over Fibre Channel, and the method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on Fibre Channel networks. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-4160739.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-4160739.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 14:57:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17335 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUWvl-0005Sz-A4 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBJv1c8021005 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUWvl-0005Si-46 for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17269 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUWvi-00067H-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUWvh-00067B-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUWvj-0005Rx-TN; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUWva-0005RP-2c for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17236 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUWvX-00066P-00 for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:47 -0500 Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163] helo=ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUWvW-00064y-00 for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:46 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hBBJuD002667 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:56:13 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:56:01 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155031D6F34@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Imss (E-mail)" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:55:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [imss] Minutes from IETF58 Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Need to be submitted to minutes@ietf.org no later than Friday 19th of December. Current status: No materials submitted See: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/index.html Thanks, Bert _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 17:19:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28726 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUZ9C-000496-SP for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBMJ2lU015932 for imss-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUZ9C-00048t-Ly for imss-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28706 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUZ9A-0003Hf-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUZ9A-0003HW-00 for imss-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUZ9B-00048N-9W; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUZ8z-00047u-FY for imss@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28670 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:45 -0500 (EST) From: elizabeth.rodriguez@dothill.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUZ8x-0003H2-00 for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:47 -0500 Received: from mail.dothill.com ([155.254.128.7] helo=dothill.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUZ8w-0003Go-00 for imss@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:46 -0500 Received: from exchange.artecon.com (exchange [206.6.182.75]) by dothill.com (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hBBMGIWu005208; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange.artecon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <42RVT1B3>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:13 -0800 Message-ID: <6E76A781C4D7D511A0C000105A209B59041B5572@exchange.artecon.com> To: margaret.wasserman@nokia.com, rsnively@brocade.com, craig.carlson@qlogic.com, pekkas@netcor.fi.cnri.reston.va.us, chirayu@chirayu.org, bob.hinden@nokia.com, ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com Cc: cds@andiamo.com, imss@ietf.org Subject: FW: [imss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01. txt Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C3C034.606A7DD0" Sender: imss-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: imss-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3C034.606A7DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello all, The revised IPv6 over FC draft that addresses WG last call comments is available. In addition to the txt version made available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel- 01.txt, Claudio has also made available a comment resolution document at ftp://ftp.t11.org/t11/pub/fc/ipv6fc/03-780v0.txt and a PDF version of the document with change bars at ftp://ftp.t11.org/t11/pub/fc/ipv6fc/03-181v4.pdf. Anyone who has made WG last call comments against the draft is requested to review the draft to insure that their comments were addressed and resolved as agreed to on the mailing list. Please submit any feedback to the list no later than Dec 19th. Thanks, Elizabeth Rodriguez -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:45 PM Cc: imss@ietf.org Subject: [imss] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Fibre Channel Author(s) : C. Desanti Filename : draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2003-12-4 This document specifies the way of encapsulating IPv6 packets over Fibre Channel, and the method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on Fibre Channel networks. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel- 01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3C034.606A7DD0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 To: Subject: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C3C034.606A7DD0" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C3C034.606A7DD0 Content-Type: text/plain ------_=_NextPart_002_01C3C034.606A7DD0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATT37506" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT37506" Content-type: message/external-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-4160739.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt ------_=_NextPart_002_01C3C034.606A7DD0 Content-Type: message/external-body; site="internet-drafts"; dir="draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-01.txt"; mode="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C3C034.606A7DD0-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3C034.606A7DD0-- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss