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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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