Subject: FW: draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-05

From: "Fraser, Don" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:11:15 -0500

I've found a couple of nits that I found in the current FC over IP IEFT
draft.

on PDF page 16, I noticed that there are 26 tests in total mentioned in a)
through m), so the correct number on the last line of that page should be 24
instead of 21.

On PDF page 24, paragraph 8.3, I would like to see us add to the end of the
paragraph the words " and notification".  And based on our experiences with
a number of FC over ATM products the word SHOULD in the next to last line of
that paragraph needs to become a SHALL.  This way any FC over IP device will
inform the local switch it is attached to any time there is a loss of the
intersite link.  Without this forced notification the two switches connected
by the intersite link created with the FC over IP devices may never know if
the link fails once it is established.  

on the top of PDF page 25, I believe we should we add the following 3rd
paragraph:  

	3) When there are disparate windows / buffer sizes between the FC
network and the IP network.
		
		Even with compatible speeds there may conditions during
normal operation of the FC fabric or the IP network
		where congestion is caused by disparate window and/or buffer
sizes. For example a device on a short link with 
		a small buffer talking with a device that is a attached to a
long distance link and a corresponding large buffer.  

on the bottom of page 27, next to last line, we probably need to re-phrase
the words "low latency" to "low latency appropriate for the distances
involved".

on PD page 38, figure 10, add the words to the effect that on closing the
TCP/IP connection the device should also close the FC Switch connection.

Finally if we drop DLY_LIM, we need to modify paragraphs on pages 5, 18, 20,
and 23.

Don Fraser