Subject: Bit numbering I-D nit

From: Ralph Weber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:34:57 -0600

I am getting serious flack from the Fibre Channel
community over the bit numbering requirement
in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html.

The problem is that Fibre Channel uses the
other bit numbering scheme and interoperability
woes seem certain unless something gets
documented in the IETF RFCs.

Everybody agrees that the body of the FC
Frame Encapsulation and FCIP drafts can
have the IETF bit numbering in the figures.

What they all want is an appendix, or some
such thing in the drafts/RFCs that translates
it all back to the Fibre Channel view of
reality.

Such a thing seems destined to make waves
in the IETF review process, and possibly
even be a target for the RFC Editor's ax.

Should I just jump of the top of the Hilton
now, or is there a way out of this mess?

Thanks.

Ralph...

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:04:04 -0500

>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Weber <[email-masked]> writes:

 Ralph> I am getting serious flack from the Fibre Channel community
 Ralph> over the bit numbering requirement in
 Ralph> http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html.

I can see why... I didn't realize that the requirement is for the
confusing old IMB-360 style bit ordering rather than the "powers of
two" bit ordering that's generally used.  Yuck.

 Ralph> The problem is that Fibre Channel uses the other bit numbering
 Ralph> scheme and interoperability woes seem certain unless something
 Ralph> gets documented in the IETF RFCs.

 Ralph> Everybody agrees that the body of the FC Frame Encapsulation
 Ralph> and FCIP drafts can have the IETF bit numbering in the
 Ralph> figures.

 Ralph> What they all want is an appendix, or some such thing in the
 Ralph> drafts/RFCs that translates it all back to the Fibre Channel
 Ralph> view of reality.

 Ralph> Such a thing seems destined to make waves in the IETF review
 Ralph> process, and possibly even be a target for the RFC Editor's
 Ralph> ax.

I would say an appendix that documents the mapping to other standards
is the right thing.  If that gives the RFC editor and/or IESG
heartburn, it's worth a battle.  Bit order is far too important an
interop issue to be left undiscussed, and if bureaucratic rules stand
in the way, those rules MUST change.

If those sound like strong words, so be it.  I've been burned far too
many times by bit order confusion to take this sort of thing lightly. 
If there exist two conventions in the community, it's mandatory to
document that explicitly and clearly state the mapping between the two
notations, or things will never work.

   paul

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:47:00 -0800 (PST)

> now, or is there a way out of this mess?

Add it as an appendix, and see what happens. Does the Fibre Channel
community have a standard dictating how they lay out bit numbers? If so,
label it a translation to that standard. :-)

Take care,

Bill

---

From: "Murali Rajagopal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:55:34 -0800

Paul/Ralph:

Clearly it appears that putting something an appendix is reaching a high
degree of consensus.
One might also, via an example in the appendix alert the reader to this
mapping. I would find
it hard that any RFC editor would argue with this informative example.

-Murali

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Paul Koning
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Bit numbering I-D nit

   paul