Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] Status of TCP ULP Framing

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:44:59 -0400

> The step from unmodified TCP to SCTP could be a direct path that avoids
the
> havoc created by this surgery on TCP.  In effect, this is nothing more
than
> a short term solution.

That's always been the intent.  There's even an IANA allocation request
for an SCTP port for iSCSI pending as I write this.

--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:24:46 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> That's always been the intent.

If that is the case, why is there even a proposal to standardize TCP ULP?

Joe

---

From: Stephen Bailey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:48:23 -0400

> If that is the case, why is there even a proposal to standardize TCP ULP?

Because prospective users are interested in creating interoperable
implementations.  The initial application, storage, favors
heterogeneity---the target and initiator implementations are almost
always different.  Some implementations involve hardware, which makes
it even more important (to the implementors) that the protocol be
standardized.

While ULP framing is considered a solution to a `short term' problem,
nobody could put an acceptable bound on `short'.  Therefore, this
incremental step has been proposed.

Steph

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:26:24 -0700

> it even more important (to the implementors) that the protocol be

Interoperable standards need not be standardized within the IETF,
especially when they are short term.

Joe