Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23])
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4KM9C320658
	for <ipsml@ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:09:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 84E5296; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 436AC7C; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 13ED589D2; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05659894A
	for <ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id DA2ED6F; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id B10118E; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5AE6F
	for <ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363)
	id 1BB0089D5; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF90894A
	for <ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 9EB726F; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 748CC8E; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from castor.cnt.com (castor.cnt.com [139.93.129.4])
	by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5FF6F
	for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from esply02.cnt.com (esply02.cnt.com [139.93.35.239])
	by castor.cnt.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4KM8qHc004880
	for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 20 May 2003 17:08:52 -0500
Received: by esply02.cnt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <KLMXMDTZ>; Tue, 20 May 2003 17:08:39 -0500
Message-ID: <3C7122FAF06DD5118ED600500473364803B22AAF@esply01.cnt.com>
From: Andy Homan <Andy_Homan@cnt.com>
To: "'ips@ece.cmu.edu'" <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: FCIP Special Frame Length
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:08:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.32 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_20
	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)

I was reviewing the most recent FCIP draft
(draft-ietf-ips-fcovertcpip-12.txt) and noticed that in section 8.1 the
length of the FSF is defined as the constant value of 18 words, even though
the frame is actually 19 words long.  The FSF size described in 14.2.2 of
FC-BB-2 is in accordance with the latter length.  If this was not done
erroneously, might someone be able to explain the rationale behind this
discrepancy in lengths?
Thanks,
Andy Homan
Computer Network Technology
Phone: 763.268.6372
andy_homan@cnt.com

http://www.cnt.com