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