IPFC WG Meeting on Wed March 29 from 1 -3 PM Number of Attendees: 26 Agenda/Meeting Minutes: Draft Status: 1) draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-02.txt · Presented by Lee Hu, TWP Networks · Status: Mostly complete · Issue raised by Chair that the MIB lacked the Fabric Element and Fabric Management comparison, since this was one of the original goals. · Andrea (SNIA) indicated that she may be able to help · Lee said that the work should be complete by next IETF meet 2) draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-fcmgmt-int-mib-03.txt - · No representative from EMC Corp. and no update available on this in over 3 months. · Chair indicated the danger of dropping a work item if no progress is made. 3) draft-ietf-ipfc-fabric-element-mib-07.txt - · This is now a Proposed Standard and awaiting an RFC number RFC 2625 Next Step: 4) Interoperability Testing · Test date now planned for second week of August at the SNIA facility in Colorado. · Andrea (SNIA) will coordinate this effort (Facilities, Equipment, Hotel, etc) · Barry Rienhold from UNH will drive the development of Test Suites. There is a $1500 charge per company to participate, payable to UNH. · Plan is to submit for DRAFT STD soon after. New Business: 5) Storage Library MIB · Presented by Andrea (SNIA) as proposal for the WG item. (see attachment of slides) · Question about relevance was asked and Andrea said that it was relevant to Fibre Channel as well many as other Storage devices · There was no objection in the WG to adopt it as a new WG item 6) FC Over IP · Presented by Murali (Gadzoox) · draft-ietf-ipfc-fcoverip-00.txt is a joint proposal by the following authors: E. Rodriguez, Lucent Technologies; M. Rajagopal, R. Bhagwat, W. Rickard from Gadzoox (see power-point attachment) · A number of questions were raised on reliability of IP versus TCP; the underlying assumption was that the data link layers were assumed to very reliable as in SONET; End-to--end recovery was also assumed in case · of a IP datagram loss; · WG suggested that the draft should indicate Reliable data links under IP, perhaps in the Abstract, otherwise it could be misleading; WG had no objections to adopting this as a new work item with the above recommendation · Question of combining this work with IP Storage BOF was brought up