RE: Internal WG Review: Storage Transport (stwg)

["Elizabeth G. Rodriguez" <ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org>]

BTW:  If you can think of another alternative for the name, I am not too
attached to this one. 

Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth G. Rodriguez [mailto:ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:20 PM
To: 'Vern Paxson'; iesg@ietf.org
Cc: iab@ietf.org; 'Elizabeth G. Rodriguez'
Subject: RE: Internal WG Review: Storage Transport (stwg)

Hi Vern,

This is a closed working group, ipfc, which held that name.  The working
group was closed about a year or two ago.  It was responsible for the
development of the IP(v4) and ARP over Fibre Channel RFC 2625, as well as
work on a couple of Fibre Channel related MIBs.

Since that name has already been used, we needed to think of another name
for the working group, unless it is decided to re-open that group.  (Note:
I don't know the IETF policy on doing such a thing.)  I personally think it
would be better to keep have this new group under a new name instead of
reinstating an old one.

One reason I have suggested Storage Transport working group is because this
is the working group where storage related MIBs developed in the INCITS T11
Technical Committee will feed into the IETF.  As mentioned in the charter,
there will be a close relationship between T11.5 and this working group.
The chair of T11.5 has indicated that there may be MIBs that that group
develops that are not Fibre Channel specific, but that are storage related
(e.g. SCSI, SAS or SATA), which would need to find a home in the IETF as
well.  It seems like this working group should be made general enough to
accommodate those MIBs as well as FC specific MIBs.

Hope this explanation helps.

Elizabeth Rodriguez

-----Original Message-----
From: Vern Paxson [mailto:vern@icir.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:54 PM
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: iab@ietf.org; Elizabeth Rodriguez
Subject: Re: Internal WG Review: Storage Transport (stwg)

Maybe a nit, but why is this "Storage Transport" (which made me think of
transport issues) rather than "IP over Fiber Channel"?

		Vern