Subject: [imss] FC Mgmt MIB: "dynamic" FC port type resolution

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:48:54 -0400

Here's what the IPS WG chairs (David and Elizabeth) have
to say on resolution of the issues around the "dynamic" FC
port type in the current FC Mgmt MIB draft:

----- Support for future FC port types

An IANA registry for FC Port Types is the right approach,
and the revised version of the FC Mgmt MIB draft will need
to contain the initial contents of the registry (including
the new values for the G, GL and F/NL ports) in addition to
instructing IANA to create the registry.

The registry also needs to contain an experimental/private
use range - where to put this is somewhat arbitrary as we
have a 32 bit integer, and T11 is unlikely to define a
large number of port types.  So, let's put that range at
10,000 - 99,999 and mark all larger values as RESERVED. 
Newly added FC port types would continue the current
enumeration - the likelihood of this ever reaching 3
digits is small.

Since the purpose of the registry is to record FC port
types as specified and standardized by T11, T11 approval
of additions to the registry is in order.  This will be
in addition to Expert Review and Specification Required
(cf. RFC 2434; the WG chairs will work out the exact
text to accomplish this with the Area Directors and
provide it to the FC Mgmt MIB draft editor.

----- Future of the "dynamic" port type

Having seen no one other than Keith speak up in favor
of "dynamic" or a second "other" type, the WG chairs
believe the rough consensus of the ips WG to be that
the "other" type suffices for FC port types that can be
identified but do not have explicit values.  Keith's
objections to this are noted, and this rough consensus
is called over those objections.  Anyone else who
objects to this should post to the list.

In the initial contents of the IANA FC port type
registry, the value 3 is to be RESERVED, and IANA is
to be instructed not to (re)allocate that value in
the future.

----- Port Capabilities vs. Types

Whether future functional additions to FC ports are
realized as new FC port types vs. capabilities added
to existing port types is fundamentally an issue for
T11 to determine.  The IETF will follow the direction
that T11 sets in this area.

Thanks,
--David (for David and Elizabeth, ips WG co-chairs)

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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