ETC/PFC Convergence Discussion Craig W. Carlson, QLogic Manoj Wadekar, QLogic Derek Rhode, QLogic

Background Both ETS and PFC proposals were submitted with consensus of many authors Original goal of ETS was to “keep it simple” ETS specification was to not dictate implementation At last meeting a proposal was brought in that places additional restrictions on, and complicates ETS and PFC az-pelissier-convergence-proposal-0708.pdf Sep XX, 2007

The issue… Goal of ETS has been to define consistent configurability Priority - Traffic class mapping is internal issue to a product Has not been defined by 802.1 Needs more discussion whether it is required Convergence proposal places restrictions on product use cases Disallows certain use cases Has the case been made whether such restrictions are mandatory? This should be product and deployment decision Sep XX, 2007

The issue (cont)… Convergence proposal pre-defines a mapping between Priorities and Traffic Classes This violates the original idea behind ETS – Allow flexibility to the implementation This also prevents an administrator from configuring a system as appropriate to their situation Data Centers Bridging has discussed assumption of “single-administrative-domain” Is proposed complexity to potentially reduce misconfiguration warranted? 4 Sep XX, 2007

Conclusion We believe we should stick with the “Keep it Simple” approach of the original ETS goals It also appears as though the proposal goes against the spirit of 802.1, allow the implementation, and deployment the flexibility to do what is needed their particular configuration Sep XX, 2007