XLS - T11

Document Sample
XLS - T11 Powered By Docstoc
					                           Sec/
Comment       tech    Phy. table/                                                                            O/A/             Done
number        /edit   page figure      Comment                             Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
McDATA-001    E          12            The scope is laconic.               Wax poetically about ELSs for a
                                                                           while.
Brocade-04        E    1           2   I do not see any reason to leave a  Make suggested change.
                                       whole page of blank space here. It
                                       would be appropriate to begin clause
                                       2 on this page.
Agilent-002   E            2 2.2       Many references are listed but not   Remove unreferenced documents
                                       otherwise referred to within FC-LS.
                                       These include: FC-PH (except in an
                                       obsolete field), FC-PH Amendment 1
                                       & 2, FC-PH-2, FC-FLA (except in an
                                       obsolete field), 10GFC, FC-PI-2,
                                       FDDI-MAC, and IEEE 802-1990.

Brocade-05        T    2       2.2     The following documents are no        Make suggested change.
                                       longer meaningful references for this
                                       document and should be deleted
                                       from the approved reference list:
                                       FC-PH, FC-PH-Amnd 1, FC-PH
                                       Amnd 2, FC-PH-2, and FC-PH-3.

QLogic-005        T        2 2.2       Reference to FC-FLA.                Remove FC-FLA and add FC-
                                                                           DA/FC-MI-2.
Agilent-003   E            3 2.3       Unused reference documents: FC-     Remove unreferenced documents
                                       GS-5 and SPC-3
Agilent-004   E            3 2.4       Unused reference documents: RFC Remove unreferenced documents
                                       2597, RFC 2598, and RFC 2406
Brocade-06        E    3       2.4     The IETF web-site should be used as Make suggested change.
                                       the primary reference for access to
                                       IETF documents. The other is a
                                       secondary address.
                           Sec/
Comment       tech    Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number        /edit   page figure     Comment                               Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-07      T      3      2.4     RFC2625 is really invalid now. It     Make suggested change.
                                      should be deleted and the
                                      corresponding RFC for IPv6 should
                                      be referenced. The new RFC for the
                                      combined ones should be ready by
                                      the time this is published and is the
                                      preferred document. If it is not, use
                                      the RFC for IPv6 and load the latest
                                      Internet Draft onto T11 and reference
                                      it for the combined one.
                                      This document is only referenced in
                                      one case to describe an error
                                      condition.

Brocade-08        T    3       2.4    The following documents are not Make suggested change.
                                      referenced in the standard and
                                      should be deleted:
                                      RFC2597, RFC2598, and RFC2406.

Agilent-005   E            4 3.2.5    Alias Token is not defined in 4.2.34,   change to "see FC-GS-4" instead
                                      but is defined in FC-GS-4               of 4.2.34
Brocade-09        E    4      3.2.1   This definition should have a           Make suggested change.
                                      reference of the form "(See FC-FS-
                                      2)"
                          Sec/
Comment      tech    Phy. table/                                                                      O/A/             Done
number       /edit   page figure     Comment                                 Proposed Solution        R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-10     T      4      3.2.2   The definition of "Active" is not       Make suggested change.
                                     consistent with the usages made of
                                     it. It often refers to exchanges in
                                     class 2 and F, where an ACK is
                                     required to terminate the active
                                     exchange. The definition should
                                     probably be deleted and the
                                     explanation placed where it is
                                     actually made use of instead, since
                                     the word itself is used in the standard
                                     English meaning and the only thing
                                     we are discussing is duration and the
                                     ending conditions of the state.

Brocade-11    E       4     3.2.9  The definition of B_Port should be       Make suggested change.
                                   changed to read: "B_Port (bridge
                                   port) is..."
Brocade-12    T       4     3.2.11 Byte implies an eight-bit entity that is Make suggested change.
                                   on a zero mod 8 boundary relative to
                                   a defined point, typically a memory
                                   location boundary or a word
                                   boundary. I would propose the
                                   following definition:
                                   "an eight-bit entity that begins zero
                                   mod 8 bits from a defined boundary,
                                   typically a memory location or word
                                   boundary. Unless otherwise
                                   specified, in this standard, the least
                                   significant bit is denoted as bit zero
                                   and is shown in diagrams in the right-
                                   most position of the byte."
                          Sec/
Comment      tech    Phy. table/                                                                    O/A/             Done
number       /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution        R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-13     T      5     3.2.26 The definition "code violation" is used Make suggested change.
                                   only one place in the document to
                                   describe a sub-class of bit error rate
                                   sources. I believe that clause 3.2.26
                                   should be deleted. I believe that
                                   Table 83, row designated by "02"h
                                   should be modified to read:
                                   "Bit-error-rate threshold exceeded:
                                   The number of bit errors detected by
                                   the incident port has exceeded a
                                   threshold (see FC-FS-2)."
                                   This allows the cases to be
                                   considered where other mechanisms
                                   than code violations may be used to
                                   detect bit errors.
                          Sec/
Comment      tech    Phy. table/                                                                  O/A/             Done
number       /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution      R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-14     T      5     Many   There is a very painful series of FC- Make suggested change.
                                   1 definitions provided in this
                                   document that reference only each
                                   other. They are unused in other
                                   places in the document. I propose
                                   that the following clauses be deleted.
                                   3.2.27 (Comma), 3.2.39 (current
                                   running disparity), 3.2.41 (data
                                   character), 3.2.49 (disparity), 3.2.120
                                   (running disparity),

                                   Note that, if there is any desire to call
                                   upon these words, than a short
                                   introduction to FC-1 functionality
                                   should be provided between clause
                                   4.1 and 4.2. I would suggest that it
                                   indicate that some FC-1 terms,
                                   defined in FC-FS-2, occur in
                                   describing a few of the states and
                                   counters in the ELS command set.
                                   Then describe the few concepts that
                                   are relevant and reference FC-FS-2
                                   for explanations beyond that. Keep
                                   in mind that there are now more one
                                   type of FC-1 and that many of the
                                   concepts have become quite
                                   slippery. As an example, 10GFC
                                   transports words in 64-bit units, not
                                   32 bit units. FC-BaseT, as it
                                   develops, may have similar
                                   ambiguities.
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                              O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                  Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-006     E          6 3.2.36 & Should include a definition              "An N_Port_Name associated
                             3.2.37                                            with the Physical N_Port of a VFT
                                                                               Tagging N_Port, and
                                                                               not with any other FC_Port within
                                                                               the scope of its Name_Identifier
                                                                               format" & "In a Virtual Fabric
                                                                               capable Switch, the
                                                                               Switch_Name identifying the
                                                                               physical Switch"

Brocade-15          E    6      Many    As part of Brocade 14, there are      Make suggested change.
                                        some additional words that are used
                                        only in the standard English sense or
                                        are not used in the document at all.
                                        These definitions should also be
                                        removed from the document. They
                                        include:
                                        3.2.43 (decoding), 3.2.52 (encoding),
                                        3.2.69 (frame content), 3.2.144
                                        (unrecognized ordered set),

Brocade-16          E    6      3.2.47 Since "targeting" is a difficult to     Make suggested change.
                                       explain concept in FC, the definition
                                       should be changed to read:
                                       "The Nx_Port designated by the
                                       Destination_Identifier of a frame."

Sierra_Logic-   E            6 3.2.36Should include a summary definition
001                                  of what this is.
Sierra_Logic-   E          6 3.2.37  Should include a summary definition
002                                  of what this is.
Brocade-17          E    7    3.2.66 The word "fractional bandwidth" has Review text to be sure that all
                                     only one referent in the document.  such words are defined.
                                     The definition should be inserted
                                     there (clause 3.2.20).
                                 Sec/
Comment         tech        Phy. table/                                                                                  O/A/             Done
number          /edit       page figure       Comment                                 Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-007     E              8 3.2.87       Should include a definition             "In a VFT Tagging N_Port, the
                                                                                      part of the Link Control Facility
                                                                                      that processes frames for
                                                                                      one Virtual Fabric, and has one or
                                                                                      more N_Port_IDs in that Virtual
                                                                                      Fabric"
Brocade-18          T        8       3.2.70 Frame type 0 is not referenced in         Make suggested change.
                                            the document. Frame type 1 is
                                            referenced only in the abbreviated
                                            form, which is attached to the
                                            request sequence of each relevant
                                            exchange. It is hardly surprising that
                                            this is the type of frame used for data
                                            exchange, including ELSs. I believe
                                            that the explanation associated with
                                            3.2.71 should be added to the third
                                            paragraph of 4.2.2 and deleted from
                                            the glossary.

Sierra_Logic-   E                 8 3.2.87    Should include a summary definition
003                                           of what this is.
Emulex-001      E       9           3.2.96    Too many closing parentheses at the Change "(see FC-AL-2, FC-FS-
                                              end of the paragraph                 2))" to "(see FC-AL-2 and FC-FS-
                                                                                   2)"
Agilent-008     E                 9 3.2.88    "see 4.2.1, 4.2.20, 4.2.22" does not Remove
                                              help define the term. LFA is only
                                              used as a parameter within FC-LS --
                                              it is not defined in FC-LS.
Agilent-123     E                 9 3.2.96    Double closing parenthesis
Agilent-009     E                10 3.2.106   Should include a definition          "A configurable VF_ID that is
                                                                                   associated with any untagged
                                                                                   frame received by a VF capable
                                                                                   N_Port or F_Port (see FC-FS-2)."

Sierra_Logic-   E                10 3.2.106   Include a summary definition
004
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                      O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure    Comment                           Proposed Solution               R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-010     E         12 3.2.151   Should include a definition       "An N_Port that has enabled
                                                                         processing of Virtual Fabric
                                                                         Tagging Headers (see FC-FS-2)."

Brocade-21          E   12    3.2.148 The only context where validity is   Make suggested change.
                                      ascribed to either data bytes or
                                      frames is outside the context of
                                      these definitions and is clear from
                                      the context of the applicable text.
                                      Clauses 3.2.148 and 3.2.149 should
                                      be deleted.
Brocade-22          E   12    3.2.147 The definition should be modified to Make suggested change.
                                      read "An Internet protocol
                                      communicating ..."
Sierra_Logic-   E         12 3.2.151 Include a summary definition.
005
Brocade-23          E   13   3.2.157 The definition of well-known address Make suggested change.
                                     is a bit weak, and doesn't consider
                                     the possibility that some of the well-
                                     known addresses are outside the
                                     "Generic Services" group. The
                                     definition should be rewritten to:
                                     "Those address identifiers explicitly
                                     defined in this standard or in another
                                     standard to access services, usually
                                     available to the entire fabric."
                          Sec/
Comment      tech    Phy. table/                                                                 O/A/             Done
number       /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution     R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-24     E     13      3.3   The first paragraph leaves too much Make suggested change.
                                   unexplained. I propose rewording it
                                   to:
                                   "In this standard, a number of
                                   conditions, mechanisms, sequences,
                                   parameters, events, states or other
                                   terms are printed with the first letter
                                   of each word in uppercase and the
                                   rest lowercase. This indicates that
                                   they have a special meaning in the
                                   context of this standard. The
                                   meaning is either described in the
                                   relevant text, in the glossary of this
                                   standard, or in a referenced
                                   standard. Examples include
                                   "Exchange" and "Class". Any use of
                                   these terms in lowercase indicates
                                   that the words have the normal
                                   technical English meanings."
                                   Note that this still creates a problem
                                   of a word a the beginning of a
                                   sentence. I suggest that we use
                                   either all caps, small caps, or
                                   misspellings (perhaps using
                                   underlines and abbreviations) for
                                   such words in the future.



Brocade-25    E      13      3.3   The words "priority relationship"    Make suggested change.
                                   should be changed to "ordering
                                   relationship". The words "priority
                                   relationship" should be changed to
                                   "ordering relationship".
Brocade-29    T      13    3.2.159 Worldwide_Names may be 128 bits      Make suggested change.
                                   long.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure     Comment                               Proposed Solution                     R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E          13 3.2.155    Include a summary definition.
006
Emulex-002      E       14      3.4      There is a grammatically incorrect    Change "(see , FC-FS-2)" to "(see
                                         comma in the definition of FT_0       FC-FS-2)"
Emulex-003      E       14      3.4      There is a grammatically incorrect    Change "(see , FC-FS-2)" to "(see
                                         comma in the definition of FT_1       FC-FS-2)"
Agilent-011     E            14 3.4      "F_CTL" is used extensively in FC-    Add "(see FC-FS-2)" to F_CTL.
                                         LS, but there is no definition        Alternatively, add a definition to
                                                                               3.2 with "(see FC-FS-2)"
Brocade-26          E    14       3.4    The abbreviations for                 Make suggested change.
                                         BB_Credit_CNT, Credit_CNT, and
                                         EE_Credit_CNT are used only in the
                                         glossary. They should use the full
                                         term and delete the acronym, or
                                         alternatively include the acronym
                                         parenthetically in the glossary
                                         definition.
Emulex-004      E       15      3.4      There is a grammatically incorrect    Change "(see , FC-FS-2)" to "(see
                                         comma in the definition of LESB       FC-FS-2)"
Agilent-012     E            15 3.4      FC_LS requires use of R_A_TOV,        Add "(see FC-FS-2)" to
                                         but does not provide a reference to   R_A_TOV. Alternatively, add a
                                         any definition                        definition to 3.2 with "(see FC-FS-
                                                                               2)"
Brocade-28          E    16       3.4    "Rx" and "Tx" are not used in the     Make suggested change.
                                         document and should be deleted.
Brocade-30          E    16       3.5    There is a font problem for "micro".  Make suggested change.
Brocade-31          E    16       3.5    L>> is not used in the document and Make suggested change.
                                         should be deleted.
Brocade-32          E    16      3.6.1   As far as I can tell, all uses of the Make suggested change.
                                         word expected use the standard
                                         English definition. The keyword
                                         should be deleted.
                            Sec/
Comment       tech     Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number        /edit    page figure      Comment                              Proposed Solution                       R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-34      E      16      3.6.3    The word "invalid" is mostly used in Make suggested change.
                                        the normal English meaning or as a
                                        term describing demarking the valid
                                        description of an error state. The
                                        keyword should be removed.

Brocade -35       E    17       3.6.7   Meaningful should be rewritten to: "A   Make suggested change.
                                        control field or bit that shall be
                                        applicable and may be interpreted by
                                        the receiver."
Brocade-36        E    17       3.7     I believe that the T10 Vendor ID is     Make suggested change.
                                        now an INCITS registered value, with
                                        the registry maintained by T10.
                                        Check with John Lohmeyer.
Emulex-005    T       18      4.1       The first sentence of 4.1 is not        I would expect Nx_Port is correct.
                                        consistent with the first sentence of   Change FC_Port to Nx_Port in
                                        4.2.1 about the destination of an       the first sentence of 4.1.
                                        ELS: Is it an FC_Port or an Nx_Port?

Agilent-013   E            18 4.2.1     Three different terms are used for      Use consistent terminology
                                        N_Port Login. In 4.2.1, it is "N_Port
                                        Login". In the Table 3 column
                                        heading, it is "PLOGI". In the Table
                                        4 column heading, it is "Login"

seagate-003   E            18 4.1       first paragraph, last sentence, A       Change the sentence to: "If
                                        reference is needed to FC-GS-4 to       Zoning as defined in FC-GS-4 is
                                        describe Zoning                         active . . . . . "
seagate-004   E            18 4.1       second paragraph, second sentence,      Change the sentence to: "Normal
                                        a reference to FC-FS-2 is needed.       rules for Exchange and Sequence
                                                                                management as defined in FC-FS-
                                                                                2 apply . . . . . ."
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                    O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution        R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-37        T     18      4.1   Is there a distinction in this standard Make suggested change.
                                      between LS_Commands and
                                      ELS_Commands? If so, Table 3 is
                                      mis-titled. If not, LS_Commands
                                      should be replaced with
                                      ELS_Commands wherever found.

Sierra_Logic-   T         18      4.1 end of 1st paragraph "If Zoning is
007                                   active in the Fabric, an ELS
                                      response from a well-known address
                                      shall only include data relating to
                                      Nx_Ports that are in the same
                                      zone(s) as the requesting Nx_Port."
                                      does not apply to ALL well-known
                                      addresses. e.g., this does not apply
                                      to the broadcast address. Does this
                                      apply to the Fabric Controller? e.g.,
                                      RCS? Change to "If Zoning is active
                                      in the Fabric, an ELS response from
                                      the Directory Service or Management
                                      Service well-known address shall
                                      only include data relating to Nx_Ports
                                      that are in the same zone(s) as the
                                      requesting Nx_Port."


Sierra_Logic-   E         18      4.1 Second paragraph "(Bit 20)" is
008                                   vague. Either specify which word in
                                      the frame header, or remove the bit
                                      reference.
Sierra_Logic-   E         18      4.1 R_CTL should be R_CTL field.
009                                   Change throughout document.
Sierra_Logic-   E         18      4.1 Table 2 should be "Extended Link
010                                   Services ..."
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure     Comment                                   Proposed Solution               R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E          18 4.2.1      Make the first sentence of 4.1 and
011                                      4.2.1 consistent or remove one of
                                         these. Is this a link-levle ... or not?
Sierra_Logic-   E            18 4.2.1    second paragraph replace 2 uses of
012                                      "Loop Fabric Address" with "LFA".

QLogic-006          T   18    4.1, end   Says "function or service." What's
                              of first   the difference between a "fuction" or
                              sentenc    "service"?
                              e, first
                              para                                             Use just one term.
QLogic-007          E      18 4.1,       The table note format in this         Make it consistent.
                              table 2    document is inconsistent.
QLogic-008          T   18    4.2.1,     Says "function or service." What's
                              end of     the difference between a "fuction" or
                              first      "service"?
                              sentenc
                              e, first
                              para                                               Use just one term.
QLogic-009          T   18    4.2.1,     Says "FLOGI to a Fabric is required
                              first      before all ELSs if a Fabric is
                              paragra    present." You log in to a switch, not a
                              ph, last   fabric.                                 Change to: FLOGI to a Switch is
                              sentenc                                            required before all ELSs if a
                              e                                                  Switch is present.
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure    Comment                                  Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-006      E    19    4.2.1     In table 3, the entry for the obsolete   In the row for the SCN ELS,
                                     SCN ELS is inconsistent with the         change "State Change
                                     entry for the obsolete ABTX ELS. I       Notification" to "State Change
                                     prefer the ABTX form.                    Notification - Obsolete", and
                                                                              change the subclause reference
                                                                              to "N/A"

                                                                              Alternatively, since SCN was
                                                                              already obsolete in FC-FS,
                                                                              remove the row entirely, making
                                                                              its code (22h) implicitly reserved
                                                                              and available for future use.


Agilent-014     E       19 Table 3   "ELS_Command codes" is               Change to "Table 3 - Extended
                                     undefined. "LS_Command" is used LS_Command codes"
                                     elsewhere in FC-LS.
Sierra_Logic-   E       19 4.2.1     Table 3 - ABTX should point to 4.2.3
013
Sierra_Logic-   E       19 4.2.1     Table 3 - add footnotes to every
014                                  page so you don't have to go three
                                     pages forward to find out what "note
                                     1" is.
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure      Comment                                  Proposed Solution                R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-007      E    20    4.2.1       In table 3, the entry for the obsolete   In the row for the RNC ELS,
                                       RNC ELS is inconsistent with the         change "Report Node Capabilities
                                       entry for the obsolete ABTX ELS. I       (obsolete)" to "Report Node
                                       prefer the ABTX form.                    Capabilities - Obsolete", and
                                                                                change the subclause reference
                                                                                to "N/A"

                                                                                Alternatively, since RNC was
                                                                                already obsolete in FC-FS,
                                                                                remove the row entirely, making
                                                                                its code (53h) implicitly reserved
                                                                                and available for future use.


Emulex-008      E    20      4.2.1     In table 3, the name of the              Unwrap it.
                                       FARP_REPLY ELS inappropriately
                                       wraps to the next line.
Sierra_Logic-   E         20 4.2.1     Table 3 - LCLM should have N/A
015                                    under "login required"
McDATA-007      T         21 Table 3   Link Keep Alive (LKA) ELS needs to       Add to table 3: 80h Link Keep
                                       be referenced or moved from FC-BB-       Alive LKA see FC-BB-3 No or 80h
                                       3 to FC-LS.                              Link Keep Alive LKA x.x.x No
                        Sec/
Comment      tech Phy. table/                                                                                      O/A/             Done
number       /edit page figure        Comment                                  Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-009   E    21    4.2.1         In table 3, the entry for the obsolete   In the row for the LPC ELS,
                                      LPC ELS is inconsistent with the         change "Loop Port Control
                                      entry for the obsolete ABTX ELS. I       (obsolete)" to "Loop Port Control -
                                      prefer the ABTX form.                    Obsolete", and change the
                                                                               subclause reference and PLOGI
                                                                               requirement to "N/A"s

                                                                               Alternatively, since LPC was
                                                                               already obsolete in FC-FS,
                                                                               remove the row entirely, making
                                                                               its code (71h) implicitly reserved
                                                                               and available for future use.


Emulex-010   E       21     4.2.1    In the first paragraph following table    Move the first sentence to the end
                                     3, the first sentence specifies the       of the paragraph.
                                     response to a violation of the rule in
                                     the last sentence. This seems bass
                                     ackwards.
QLogic-010       T      21 Second Says: "all others are optional):"            Change to: "all others are optional
                           para on                                             for purposes of this standard,
                           page                                                other standards or Technical
                           (just                                               Reports may require further ELS
                           before                                              support" to cover FC-MI-2, FC-DA
                           a,b list)                                           and others.
Emulex-011   E       22    4.2.1     There is no reference to table 4          Before table 4, add the paragraph
                                     (describing responses to ELS              "An Nx_Port receiving an ELS
                                     requests for various login states and     request shall respond to it in
                                     requirements)                             accord with table 4, depending on
                                                                               its N_Port Login state with the
                                                                               Nx_Port sending the ELS request
                                                                               and the PLOGI requirement for
                                                                               the ELS specified in table 3."
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                      O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure         Comment                                  Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-012      T    22    4.2.2          The first paragraph of 4.2.2 seems       Change the first paragraph of
                                          like a well intentioned but inadequate   4.2.2 from "Extended Link Service
                                          attempt to require FC-FS-2 compliant     frames and Sequences are
                                          communication.                           composed of Link_Data frames
                                                                                   and shall operate according to the
                                                                                   R_RDY Primitive, ACK, and
                                                                                   Link_Response rules specified in
                                                                                   FC-FS-2" to "Extended Link
                                                                                   Service communication shall
                                                                                   observe all rules of FC-FS-2
                                                                                   relevant to the Fibre Channel
                                                                                   features selected by the frame
                                                                                   headers and logins used".


Emulex-013      T       22      4.2.2     The third paragraph of 4.2.2 begins Delete the useless sentence.
                                          with the sentence "ELS request and
                                          reply frames shall use FT_1". This is
                                          pointless, because ELSs have
                                          payloads and that automatically
                                          requres FT_1. There is no
                                          alternative.
Brocade-38          E    22       4.2.2   "Most of ELS protocols" should be     Make suggested change.
                                          "Most ELS commands"
Sierra_Logic-   E            22 4.2.1     Table 4 - there needs to be a
016                                       descriptive paragraph about table 4
                                          and its usage.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                       O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure      Comment                                Proposed Solution                         R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E          22 4.2.1       Paragraph after table 4 - "has invalid
017                                       information" seems a little vague.
                                          This does not allow for a variety af
                                          reasons that the PLOGI may not be
                                          accepted e.g., no resources for the
                                          PLOGI. broaden the range of
                                          reasons for rejecting the PLOGI
                                          while keeping the concept of
                                          requiring support of PLOGI.

Sierra_Logic-   E            22 4.2.2     second paragraph "Most of ELS ..."
018                                       s.b. "Most ELS ..."
Sierra_Logic-   E            22 4.2.2     Second paragraph "consists" s.b.
019                                       "consist"
QLogic-011          T   22      4.2.2,    Capitalization of "reply" and "request"
                                second    is inconsistent within this paragraph.
                                para                                                 Make consistent.
Emulex-014      T       23      4.2.2     The fourth paragraph of 4.2.2              Delete the fourth paragraph of
                                          unnecessarily restates X_ID                4.2.2
                                          assignment rules from FC-FS-2.
Emulex-015      T       23      4.2.2     If the first paragraph of 4.2.2 is         Delete the first two sentences of
                                          corrected in order to require general      the fifth paragraph of 4.2.2.
                                          compliance with FC-FS-2, the first
                                          two sentences of the fifth paragraph
                                          become redundant.
Emulex-016      T       23      4.2.2     Except for its first sentence, list item   Delete the second and third
                                          c in 4.2.2 explains why to use ABTS        sentences of list item c in 4.2.2
                                          rather than ABTX. This explanation
                                          is now specious, since ABTX is
                                          obsolete.
Emulex-017      T       23      4.2.2     List items f, g, and h of 4.2.2 require    In list items f, g, and h of 4.2.2,
                                          use of ABTX. It is obsolete.               change ABTX to ABTS.

Emulex-018      E       23      4.2.4.1   There is a grammatically incorrect         Change "See FC-FS-2, for" to
                                          comma in the fourth sentence of the        "See FC-FS-2 for"
                                          first paragraph
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                                    Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-015     E          23 4.2.2 d) the "Discard multiple Sequences            Add "(see FC-FS-2)"
                                       Error Policy" is undefined in FC-LS
Agilent-016     T          23 4.2.2 f) ABTX is obsolete                           Remove f)
Agilent-017     T          23 4.2.2 g) ABTX is obsolete                           Specify a proper action to take
                                                                                  after retry fails
Agilent-018     T            23 4.2.2 h) ABTX is obsolete                         Specify a proper action to take
Sierra_Logic-   E            23 4.2.2    Note 2 remove last sentence.
020
Sierra_Logic-   E            23 4.2.2    item g "(5-4)" is vague. remove the
021                                      bit reference.
Sierra_Logic-   T            23 4.2.2    Items f, g, and h require the use of
022                                      ABTX which is obsolete. Re-think
                                         what the resolution to these items is.

QLogic-012          T   23      Note 2 This note repeats itself.            Delete last sentence.
QLogic-013          T   23      4.2.4.1, Says "this frame"
                                4th
                                sentenc
                                e                                           change to "this ELS"
Agilent-019     E            24 4.2.4.3 Reference to clause 6 could be more Change "(see 6)" to "(see 6.6.5)"
                                         specific
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure    Comment                                   Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-019      T    26    4.2.5.1   The description of the ECHO               Change the description of the
                                     command is about 60% redundantly          ECHO ELS to "The Echo ELS
                                     repeated general rules for ELS            Request provides a means to
                                     behavior. It also puts the "what is it"   transmit a Data frame and have
                                     down in the middle of the "how does       the Payload content returned for
                                     it work".                                 a simple loopback diagnostic
                                                                               function. The Echo ELS shall
                                                                               consist of a single frame with zero
                                                                               or more bytes of data following
                                                                               the LS_Command word. The
                                                                               ECHO LS_ACC Reply Sequence
                                                                               shall consist of a single frame
                                                                               with a copy of the ECHO ELS
                                                                               data following the LS_Command
                                                                               word".

Sierra_Logic-   E       26 4.2.5.1   The description of the ECHO ELS
023                                  has all of the overview of rules for
                                     generation of an ELS. Simplify to
                                     "The Echo ELS requests the
                                     Recipient to transmit the Payload
                                     contents that follows the
                                     LS_Command back to the Initiator of
                                     the Echo command in the same
                                     order as received using the LS_ACC
                                     Reply Sequence. The Echo ELS
                                     Request provides a means to
                                     transmit a Data frame and have the
                                     Payload content returned for a
                                     simple loopback diagnostic function.
                                     The Echo command shall be
                                     transmitted as a one frame
                                     Sequence and the LS_ACC Reply
                                     Sequence is also a one frame
                                     Sequence.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                     O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure      Comment                                  Proposed Solution                     R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-020     T          27 4.2.5.3     FC-LS 6.6.2.6 specifies minimum of       Change "(i.e., 124 bytes)" to "(i.e.,
                                          256B for Receive Data_Field size         252 bytes)"

Agilent-021     E            27 4.2.5.3   "Receive Data_Field Size" and            Use consistent terminology
                                          "Receive Data Field Size" are both
                                          used elsewhere in FC-LS
Emulex-020      E       28      4.2.6.1   Last sentence of the last paragraph      Change "(see FC-FS-2) for" to
                                          has a misformed reference                "See FC-FS-2 for"

Emulex-021      E       28      4.2.7.1   Last sentence of the last paragraph      Change "(see FC-FS-2) for" to
                                          has a misformed reference                "See FC-FS-2 for"

Agilent-022     E            28 4.2.6.1, Extraneous parentheses around "see
                                4.2.7.1 FC-xx"
Sierra_Logic-   E            28 4.2.6.1 Last sentence remove s.b. See FC-
024                                      FS-2 for the usage of this ELS.
Sierra_Logic-   E            28 4.2.6.3 in the description of the Payload the
025                                      sentence "The remainder of the
                                         Payload shall be the size as
                                         determined by Login." s.b. "The
                                         remainder of the Payload shall be
                                         any valid data bytes up to max frame
                                         length - 4, as determined by Login."

Sierra_Logic-   E            28 4.2.7.1   Last sentence "estimated" s.b.
026                                       "established"
Agilent-023     E            29 4.2.7.4   The sentence: "The Payload shall         Change to: "The Payload shall
                                          contain Streaming Credit (L) …"          contain the Streaming Credit
                                          should be changed. The "(L)" is          allocated in the Nx_Port end-to-
                                          unnecessary, and the Credit field        end Credit field of ..."
                                          should be qualified.
Sierra_Logic-   E            29 4.2.7.4   What is the meaning of (L)? clarify or
027                                       remove.
Sierra_Logic-   T            29 4.2.7.4   under LS_ACC - "Credit field" should
028                                       be "Nx_Port end-to-end Credit field"
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                                O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         29 4.2.7.4  After "Class Service Parameters"
029                                   add a reference to clause 6.6.5.
Agilent-024     E         30 Table 11 Last word number should be 28
                                      instead of 38
Agilent-025     E         30 4.2.8.1 Corrections to references                Change "(see FC-FS-2)" to "(see
                                                                              6.2)" and "(see 6)" to "(see 6.3)"

Agilent-026     E         31 4.2.8.1   "Fibre Channel Service" is undefined   Add "(see FC-FS-2)" after Fibre
                                       in FC-LS                               Channel Service
Agilent-027     E         31 4.2.8.1   "abnormally" doesn't add any           remove "abnormally" (three
                             (one      information to the sentence            places)
                             place),
                             4.2.9.1
                             (two
                             places)
Agilent-028     E         31 4.2.8.3, Tables defining the Payloads are        Change "table 12" to "table 151"
                             4.2.8.4 incorrect                                and "table 13" to "table 151"

Sierra_Logic-   E         31 4.2.8.3   Table 12 FLOGI payload is missing
030
Sierra_Logic-   E         31 4.2.8.3  Table 13 FLOGI LS_ACC payload is
031                                   missing
Agilent-029     E         32 4.2.10.1 "Fabric Controller" is undefined in FC- Add a definition in 3.2: "Fabric
                                      LS, but it is used extensively in FC- Controller: The logical entity
                                      LS                                     responsible for operation of the
                                                                             Fabric identified by the
                                                                             well-known address FFFFFDh
                                                                             (see FC-SW-4)."
Agilent-030     E         34 Table 16 "intermix" is capitalized in the       Capitalize intermix (2 places)
                                      definition section
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                              O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                                  Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-031     E          35 Table    "Association_Header" is not defined      Add (see FC-FS-2) after
                              17,      in FC-LS                                 Association_Header
                              Table
                              18,
                              Table
                              25,
                              Table 27

Agilent-032     E          35 4.2.11.3 None of the fields within the RES        Add descriptions
                                       Payload are described
Sierra_Logic-   T          35 4.2.11.4 Fix NOTE 3. This should have been
032                                    fixed before letter ballot. Especially -
                                       remove FC-FS-2 from the note. FC-
                                       PH-3 is out of date. Is this the same
                                       as in FC-FS? If so just remove the
                                       note.
Sierra_Logic-   E          36 4.2.12.3 F_POrt s.b. F_Port
033
Sierra_Logic-   E          36 4.2.12.3 item c "anyNx_Port" should have a
034                                    space and be "any Nx_Port"
Emulex-024      E       37    4.2.12.3 In the first paragraph on the page,      Change "The requested LESG is
                                       reference is made to the undefined       identified as follows" to "The
                                       acronym LESG while describing the        requested LESB is identified as
                                       selection of a Read Link Error Status    follows"
                                       Block (LESB)
Agilent-033     E          37 4.2.12.3 "The requested LESG …" is incorrect      Change to: "The requested RLS
                                                                                …"
Sierra_Logic-   E          37 4.2.12.3 "LESG" s.b. "LESB"
035
Sierra_Logic-   E          37 4.2.12.3 item a "THe" s.b. "The"
036
Sierra_Logic-   E          37 4.2.12.3 item b "N_POrt_ID" s.b. "N_Port_ID"
037
Sierra_Logic-   E          37 4.2.12.4 item b "logged in with and F_Port ..."
038                                    s.b. "logged in with an F_Port"
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-022      T    38    4.2.13.4 There is an editor's note within Note   Note 4, containing a reference to
                                    4 questioning reference to old          old standards, is to resolve a
                                    standards and to FC-FS-2 for an ELS     rather noisy issue that arose early
                                    specification.                          in the development of FC-FS-2
                                                                            and FC-LS, wherein it was
                                                                            noticed that FC-FS and its
                                                                            successors changed the content
                                                                            of the Sequence Status Block
                                                                            from FC-PH-3. This invalidated
                                                                            some early implementations, but
                                                                            changing back would invalidate
                                                                            many newer implementations, so
                                                                            the change was kept, but the
                                                                            difference was noted both here
                                                                            and in FC-FS-2. The reference to
                                                                            FC-FS-2 is appropriate because
                                                                            the issue directly relates to the
                                                                            SSB, not to the RSS ELS that
                                                                            contains an SSB.

                                                                            Remove the editor's note and
                                                                            leave Note 4 unchanged.



Sierra_Logic-   E        38 4.2.13.4 Note 4 - If this was changed in FC-
039                                  FS from FC-PH, and this is the same
                                     as FC-FS implementation, this note
                                     should be removed. This should
                                     have been done before Letter Ballot.

Sierra_Logic-   T        39 4.2.14.1 "shall request" s.b. "requests"
040
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                        O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                               Proposed Solution              R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         39 4.2.14.1 second sentence is not accurate. re-
041                                   write as "The LS_ACC returns the
                                      value that the FC_Port uses for
                                      R_T_TOV.
Sierra_Logic-   E         39 4.2.14.1 LS_ACC - change first sentence to
043                                   "LS_ACC returns the requested
                                      R_A_TOV and E_D_TOV values.
Agilent-034     T         40 4.2.15.1 Abort Exchange is obsolete            remove Abort Exchange from 1st
                                                                            paragraph and remove 1st
                                                                            sentence from 2nd paragraph
Agilent-035     E         40 4.2.15.1 The meaning of "the
                                      Recovery_Qualifier is purged" is not
                                      clear.
Sierra_Logic-   T         40 4.2.14.4 How are word 1 (R_A_TOV Value)
044                                   and word 3 bit 19 used together?
                                      This is not clear from the current
                                      table 24 and following text.
Sierra_Logic-   E         40 4.2.15.1 Remove Abort Exchange from the
046                                   last sentence of the first paragraph.

Sierra_Logic-   T         40 4.2.15.1 Second Paragraph "Abort Exchange"
047                                   is obsolete. Change as appropriate.

Agilent-036     E         42 4.2.16.1 "NOP Basic Link Service frame" is     Add (see FC-FS-2) after frame
                                      not defined in FC-LS
Sierra_Logic-   T         44 4.2.19.1 Middle of first paragraph - The
048                                   FL_Port shall report the
                                      F_Port_Name and Fabric_Name as
                                      they were reported in the prior
                                      FLOGI, and shall report the current
                                      Loop Fabric Address." s.b. " The
                                      FL_Port shall report the current
                                      F_Port_Name, Fabric_Name, and
                                      Loop Fabric Address."
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                             O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-037     T         45 4.2.20.1 INITIALIZING and OPEN-INIT states       Change to: … type specified in
                                      have been superseded by                 the Payload and enter the
                                      INITIALIZATION process in FC-AL-2,      INITIALIZATION Process state
                                      clause 8.4                              (see FC-AL-2). The LS_ACC
                                                                              Reply Sequence shall
                                                                              not be initiated before the
                                                                              FL_Port has transitioned from the
                                                                              INITIALIZATION Process state to
                                                                              the MONITORING State

Agilent-038     E         45 4.2.20.1 "LIP" is not defined in FC-LS          Add "(see FC-AL-2)" after LIP and
                                                                             add LIP to 3.4: "Loop Initialization
                                                                             Primitive Sequence – any of the
                                                                             LIP Primitive Sequences (see FC-
                                                                             AL-2)"
Agilent-039     E         45 4.2.20.1 (see FC-AL-2) following FAN ELS        Change "FAN ELS (see FC-AL-
                                      makes it appear that FAN ELS will be 2)" to "FAN ELS (see 4.2.19).
                                      specified in FC-AL-2
Sierra_Logic-   E         45 4.2.20.1 "enter the INITIALIZING Arbitrated
049                                   Loop State" s.b. "begin the
                                      Initialization Process as described in
                                      FC-AL-2."
Sierra_Logic-   E         45 4.2.20.1 "has transitioned from the OPEN-
050                                   INIT to MONITORING State, " s.b.
                                      "completed the initialization process,
                                      ..."
                          Sec/
Comment      tech    Phy. table/                                                                                  O/A/             Done
number       /edit   page figure   Comment                                     Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
McDATA-004   T         46 4.2.19.1 The FAN ELS shall be sent by an             s/b The FAN ELS shall be sent by
                                   FL_Port (FFFFFEh) to all known              a Fabric F_Port (FFFFFEh) to all
                                   previously logged in (via FLOGI)            known previously logged in (via
                                   attached NL_Ports following an              FLOGI)
                                   initialization event. This initialization   attached NL_Ports following an
                                   event is typically Loop Initialization      initialization event. This
                                   on an Arbitrated Loop, though other         initialization event is typically
                                   events that may cause a port to             Loop Initialization
                                   change its ID may also be                   on an Arbitrated Loop, though
                                   considered. The FL_Port shall report        other events that may cause a
                                   the F_Port_Name and Fabric_Name             port to change its ID may also be
                                   as they were reported in                    considered. The Fabric F_Port
                                   the prior FLOGI, and shall report the       shall report the F_Port_Name and
                                   current Loop Fabric Address. The            Fabric_Name as they were
                                   FL_Port shall send this ELS                 reported in
                                   using the default login parameters          the prior FLOGI, and shall report
                                   (i.e., the parameters that are in effect    the current Loop Fabric Address.
                                   prior to a FLOGI Request).                  The Fabric F_Port shall send this
                                   The attached ports may use this             ELS
                                   information to authenticate active          using the default login parameters
                                   Exchanges and operating                     (i.e., the parameters that are in
                                   parameters                                  effect prior to a FLOGI Request).
                                   (e.g., login BB_Credit).                    The attached ports may use this
                                   The FL_Port shall report identical          information to authenticate active
                                   information to all attached NL_Ports.       Exchanges and operating
                                   If the information changes in               parameters
                                   any way before the FL_Port is able to       (e.g., login BB_Credit).
                                   send the service to all attached ports,     The Fabric F_Port shall report
                                   the FL_Port shall begin                     identical information to all
                                   a new initialization event.                 attached NL_Ports. If the
                                                                               information changes in
                                                                               any way before the Fabric F_Port
                                                                               is able to send the service to all
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                    Proposed Solution                R/W Resolution   in Rev
McDATA-005      T         46 4.2.19.3 Addressing: The S_ID is the FL_Port        s/b Addressing: The S_ID is the
                                      (FFFFFEh) sending the FAN. The             Fabric F_Port (FFFFFEh) sending
                                      D_ID is the NL_Port receiving              the FAN. The D_ID is the NL_Port
                                      the FAN.                                   receiving
                                                                                 the FAN.
Sierra_Logic-   E         46 4.2.20.4 "LS_ACC signifies acceptance of the
051                                   LINIT Request and initiation of Loop
                                      Initialization. " s.b. "LS_ACC signifies
                                      acceptance of the LINIT Request and
                                      completion of Loop Initialization."

McDATA-006      T         47 4.2.20.1 The LS_ACC Reply Sequence shall            s/b The LS_ACC Reply
                                      not be initiated before the FL_Port        Sequence shall
                                      has transitioned from the OPEN-INIT        not be initiated before the
                                      to MONITORING State, and                   FL_Port has transitioned from the
                                      has completed sending any FAN              OPEN-INIT to MONITORING
                                      ELS (see FC-AL-2).                         State, and the Fabric F_Port
                                                                                 has completed sending any FAN
                                                                                 ELS (see FC-AL-2).
Agilent-040     E         48 4.2.22.4 The information in the note is             Remove NOTE 5
                             NOTE 5 redundant. It is included in item a)
Agilent-041     E         48 4.2.22.4 The Payload field list should continue
                                      with d) Current Public Loop Devices,
                                      rather than resetting the list to a)

Sierra_Logic-   E         48 4.2.22.4 Note 5 is redundant with the
052                                   description in item a. Remove note 5.

Agilent-041     E         49 4.2.23.2 "Loss-of-Signal" is not defined in FC-     Add (see FC-FS-2) after Loss-of-
                                      LS                                         Signal
Agilent-043     E         50 4.2.23.3 "registered Nx_Ports" here but             Capitalize registered
                                      "Registered Nx_Ports" in 4.2.23.7
Agilent-044     T         50 4.2.23.3 02h and 00h imply an 8 bit field -- the    Change "02h or 00h" to "0010b or
                                      RSCN Event Qualifer is a four bit          0000b"
                                      field, not aligned on nibble boundary
                               Sec/
Comment         tech      Phy. table/                                                                                O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                                  Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E          50 4.2.23.7 First sentence on page - remove
053                                    "either"
Agilent-045     E          51 Table 39 "Sequence" seems to be an extra          Remove Sequence
                                       word in the specification for Byte 3
Agilent-046     E          52 Table 41 Values 4 - 255 are not possible in a 2   Remove Reserved row from
                                       bit field                                Table
Emulex-023      E       54     4.2.5.1 At the end of the first paragraph is a   Change "Nx_Port. (see FC-FS-
                                       grammatically incorrect reference        2)." to "Nx_Port (see FC-FS-2)."

                                                                                (For those with aging eyesight,
                                                                                the period in the middle should be
                                                                                removed)

Agilent-047     E          54 4.2.25.1 PRLI is described in 7.1             Change (see FC-FS-2) to (see
                                                                            7.1)
Agilent-049     E          55 4.2.25.3 "FC-4 TYPE" is not defined in FC-LS, Add FC-4 TYPE to 3.2 with (see
                              c)        but is used extensively in FC-LS    FC-FS-2): "FC-4 Type: An FC-4
                                                                            protocol associated with the value
                                                                            in the Type field in the header of
                                                                            a data
                                                                            frame (see FC-FS-2)."
Agilent-050     E          56    Table Asterisk note is redundant with a)   Remove asterisk note
                                    47, below
                              Table 49

seagate-008     E          56 Table 47 The symbol * is used to link a note to   Change to supersricpt number or
                                        the table.                              letter.
Agilent-051     E          57 following Originator Process_Associator and       Add items to the list following
                              Table     Responder Process_Associator            Tables 47 and 49 that describe
                              47,       fields are not described                these fields:
                              following                                         "{Originator|Responder}
                              Table 49                                          Process_Associator: Identifies
                                                                                the process or group of
                                                                                processes within the
                                                                                {Originator|Responder} (see FC-
                                                                                FS-2)."
                               Sec/
Comment         tech      Phy. table/                                                                            O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure    Comment                                  Proposed Solution               R/W Resolution   in Rev
seagate-009     E          58 Table 49 The symbol * is used to link a note to    Change to supersricpt number or
                                        the table.                               letter.
Emulex-025      E       59     4.2.26.1 At the end of the first paragraph is a   Change "Nx_Port. (see FC-FS-2)"
                                        grammatically incorrect reference        to "Nx_Port (see FC-FS-2)."

                                                                                 (For those with aging eyesight,
                                                                                 the period in the middle should be
                                                                                 removed and a period is added at
                                                                                 the end)
Agilent-052     E          59 following Response code is used without            Don't capitalize response
                              Table 49 capitalization elsewhere
                              item f)

Agilent-053     E          59 4.2.26.1 PRLO is described in FC-LS, not FC-       Change "(see FC-FS-2)" to "(see
                                       FS-2                                      7.2)"
seagate-010     E          61 Table 52 The symbol * is used to link a note to    Change to supersricpt number or
                                       the table.                                letter.
QLogic-014          E   61    Table 52 Inconsistent table note format.
                                                                                 Make consistent.
seagate-011     E          63 Table 54 The symbol * is used to link a note to    Change to supersricpt number or
                                        the table.                               letter.
Agilent-057     T          64 Table 55 Service Parameters are not defined        Change 1000b to Reserved
                                        for PRLO, therefore the 1000b value
                                        is not valid
Agilent-060     E          67 Table 59 The TPLS Response page row is             Remove the TPLS Response
                                        redundant                                page row from the table
Sierra_Logic-   E          68 4.2.29.1 "A FARP_REQ Match" - is this a
054                                     proper name, or is this really just a
                                        "match"? If this is just a "match"
                                        make it lower case.
QLogic-015          T   68    4.2.29    Why do we still have FARP?               Obsolete it!
Agilent-061     E          69 following Responding N_Port_ID is not              Add description: "Responding
                              4.2.29.3 described                                 N_Port_ID: The Responding
                              c)                                                 N_Port_ID contains the address
                                                                                 identifier for the Nx_Port that is
                                                                                 responding to the FARP_REQ"
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure      Comment                                 Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-062     E          69 4.2.29.3    Capitalized "Match" implies some        Don't capitalize match
                              f) and g)   special definition of match
Sierra_Logic-   E          69 4.2.29.1    item f - "Match" s.b. "match"
055
Sierra_Logic-   E            70 4.2.29.1 item g - "Match" s.b. "match"
056
Sierra_Logic-   E            70 4.2.29.1 item i - "Match" s.b. "match"
057
Sierra_Logic-   E          70 4.2.29.1 Table 62 "Match" s.b. "match"
058                                    through out, including in the title of
                                       the table.
QLogic-016          T   73    4.2.30   Why do we still have FARP?                 Obsolete it!
Agilent-064     E          75 4.2.30.4 "(see 4.2.30)" is unnecessary              remove
Agilent-065     T          75 Table 69 The description for Value 00h states       Change description for Value 00h
                                       "This allows the RNID Accept               to: "Shall be set when the
                                       Payload to return an Specific-coded        requesting Nx_Port is requesting
                                       value in the Node Identification Data      Common Identification Data only
                                       Format field." Shouldn't the Accept        (see Table 72)"
                                       always have 00h in the Node ID Data
                                       Format field?

Emulex-026      E       77      4.2.31.3 At the end of the second column of       Change "defined in (see FC-FS-
                                         the third row of table 69 (01h - Deh)    2)." to "defined in FC-FS-2."
                                         is a grammatically incorrect
                                         reference.
Agilent-066     E            77 Table 69 "Specific-coded" is not defined          Change description to: "For
                                                                                  Specific Indentification Data
                                                                                  corresponding to a specific ULP
                                                                                  (e.g., FCP-3), shall be set to the
                                                                                  FC-4 TYPE (see FC-FS-2) of that
                                                                                  ULP."
Agilent-067     E            77 Table 69 Under Values 01h - DEh, the "(e.g.,      Use FC-SB-3 as an example
                                         FCP-3)" might not be the best            instead
                                         example. I am unable to find
                                         Specific Identification data described
                                         in FCP-3.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-068     E          77 Table 69 "see 4.2.32" is incorrect               Change to "see 4.2.31.5"

Sierra_Logic-   E          77 4.2.31.3 Table 69 - second row "shall be set
060                                    to " s.b. "shall be used for"
Sierra_Logic-   E          77 4.2.31.3 Table 69 01h-DEh need to have a
061                                    pointer as to where these code
                                       values are defined. - see table 71
                                       definition.
QLogic-017          E   77    Table    Reference 4.2.32 has strange
                              69,      spacing.
                              "DFh"
                              row                                              Fix it.
Emulex-027      E       78    4.2.31.4 In list item A is a grammatically       Change "(See (see FC-FS-2) and
                                       incorrect reference.                    (see FC-FS-2))" to "(see FC-FS-
                                                                               2)"

                                                                                 That was a good one!
Emulex-028      E       78      4.2.31.4 In list item B is a grammatically       Change "(See (see FC-FS-2) and
                                         incorrect reference.                    (see FC-FS-2))" to "(see FC-FS-
                                                                                 2)"
Agilent-069     E            78 4.2.31.4 "Common Identification-Data length" Remove the hyphen (4 places)
                                b) and c) is used. No hyphen seems
                                          necessary, and it is inconsistent with
                                          other uses of the term
Sierra_Logic-   T            78 4.2.31.4 item A below Table 72 "A)
062                                       N_Port_Name: The N_Port_Name
                                          field provides the Name_Identifier
                                          (See (see FC-FS-2) and (see FC-FS-
                                          2)) of the Nx_Port or Fx_Port to
                                          which the RNID ELS was directed."
                                          has an extra parenthetical
                                          expression or is missing something. I
                                          don't know what was intended, so I
                                          cannot recommend the correct fix.
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                       O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                  Proposed Solution          R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   T         78 4.2.31.4 Item B below Table 72 "B)
063                                   Node_Name: The Node_Name field
                                      provides the Name_Identifier (See
                                      (see FC-FS-2) and (see FC-FS-2)) of
                                      the node associated with the Nx_Port
                                      or Fx_Port indicated in the
                                      N_Port_Name field. "has an extra
                                      parenthetical expression or is
                                      missing something. I don't know what
                                      was intended, so I cannot
                                      recommend the correct fix.
Agilent-070     E         79 4.2.31.4 "see 4.2.32" is incorrect                Change to "see 4.2.31.5"
                             e)
Agilent-071     E         79 4.2.31.5 "see table 136" is incorrect             Change to "see table 74"
                             a)
Sierra_Logic-   E         79 4.32.31. item a after Table 73 has an incorrect
064                          5        reference to table 136. should be to
                                      table 74.
Agilent-072     E         82 Table 76 CIM, XML, CIM-XML and CIM-HTTP
                                      are external documents referred to
                                      by FC-LS. They should be listed in
                                      Clause 2 rather than in Notes in this
                                      table
Sierra_Logic-   T         83 4.2.32.1 Item d - is the port registered with the
065                                   incidnent port or with the reporting
                                      port? Fix this if it is wrong.

Sierra_Logic-   E         83 4.2.32.1 Last paragraph after "incident code"
066                                   add a reference to table 83
Sierra_Logic-   E         85 4.2.32.4 Delete first sentence after table 79,
067                                   as it is confusing and mis-directs the
                                      reader for the location of this field.
                                      The second sentence is the accurate
                                      description.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                  O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                               Proposed Solution                        R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   T          85 4.2.32.4 item c - should "The Common Link
068                                    Incident Descriptor length shall be
                                       set to 4 bytes specifying the number
                                       of bytes in the Link Incident
                                       Descriptor field." be "The Common
                                       Link Incident Descriptor length shall
                                       be set to 4h, specifying the number
                                       of bytes in the Link Incident
                                       Descriptor field." ?

Sierra_Logic-   E          85 4.2.32.4 item d "0 bytes" and "252 bytes"
069                                    should be "0" and "252" respectively
                                       (drop the word "bytes")

Sierra_Logic-   E          85 4.2.32.4 item e - add pointer to Table 80 with
070                                    the last sentence.
QLogic-018          T   85    1st para References FCP-2.
                              on page,
                              1st
                              sentenc
                              e
                                                                               Change to FCP-3.
Agilent-073     T          87 4.2.32.4 Incorrect word number                   Change "Word 8 bits 31-24 (byte
                              f) A)                                            0 of the Common Link Incident
                              (follows                                         Descriptor) qualify…" to "This
                              Table                                            field (byte 0 of the Common Link
                              81)                                              Incident Descriptor) qualifies…"

Agilent-074     E          88 Table      Confusing language for Meaning        Change "Link incidents use
                              82, bits   column                                reporting-status 0 to provide
                              27-26                                            information only" to "Indicates link
                                                                               incident notification of an
                                                                               informational purpose". Change
                                                                               "Link incidents use reporting-
                                                                               status order x if" to "Indicates" on
                                                                               rows for codes 1 and 2
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure     Comment                                Proposed Solution                      R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-075     T         88 4.2.32.4   Incorrect word number                  Change "Word 8 bits 23-16..." to
                             f) B)                                             "This field…"
                             (follows
                             Table
                             82)
Agilent-077     E         88 4.2.32.4   Sub-list aa) and bb) is not necessary. Restructure to remove list aa) and
                             f) B)      Table 83 describes the entire 8-bit    bb)
                             (follows   Incident Code field, where bit 23 is
                             Table      always Reserved.
                             82)
Sierra_Logic-   E         88 4.2.32.4 item bb - removed "that shall be
071                                   specified"
Agilent-076     E         89 Table 83 Meaning for Value 03h has a             Remove "The incident port has
                                      redundant sentence.                     recognized a Loss-of-Signal
                                                                              condition" sentence
Agilent-078     E         89 Table 83   Value FFh is not specified            Change range of Reserved
                                                                              values to 09h - FFh
Agilent-079     E         89 4.2.32.4   In "Specific Link Incident Record     Remove the word Data. In the
                             g)         Data", the word Data is extraneous sentence following, remove "-
                                                                              Data Field"
Agilent-080     E         89 4.2.32.4   There is no clue where to look for    Add "Specific Link Incident
                             g)         specific formats of the Specific Link Record formats are defined in the
                                        Incident Record                       specification for the specific client
                                                                              ULP (e.g., see FC-SB-3)
                                                                              indicated by the Link Incident
                                                                              Record Format."
Agilent-082     E         90 4.2.33.1   See 4.2.31.1 is incorrect             Change to See 4.2.32.1
Agilent-083     E         93 4.2.33.5   The "(e.g., see FCP-3)" might not be Use FC-SB-3 as an example
                             b)         the best example. I am unable to      instead
                                        find a format for "Link Incident"
                                        described in FCP-3.
Sierra_Logic-   E         93 4.2.33.5   Last paragraph in "(e.g., see FCP-3)"
072                                     remove "see"
Agilent-084     E         94 Table 89   GAID abbreviation should be used      Change to GAID
                                        instead of Get Alias_ID to be
                                        consistent with other ELS's.
                             Sec/
Comment         tech    Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number          /edit   page figure   Comment                                  Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-085     E         94 4.2.34.3 "see 6" could be more specific           Change to "see 6.6"
                             b)
Agilent-086     E         94 4.2.34.3 misplaced parenthesis                    Move closing parenthesis from
                             d)                                                end of paragraph to after "contain
                                                                               the N_Port_ID"
Sierra_Logic-   E         94 4.2.34.4 Last sentence "one of the reason
073                                    code explanations given in table 149"
                                       is very vague. What are the specific
                                       ones that apply to rejecting GAID?
                                       narrow this down to help
                                       interoperability.
QLogic-019          T     94 List item References FC-GS-4.                     Change to FC-GS-5.
                             a).
Agilent-087     E         95 Table 90 Field is named Alias_ID instead of       Change field name to Alias Group
                                       Alias Group Identifier                  Identifier
Sierra_Logic-   E         95 4.2.35.3 under Payload remove ", among
074                                    other parameters" This is a complete
                                       list.
Agilent-088     E         97 Table 93 Word 0, bits 31..24 has the wrong        Change to FDACT
                                       name
Sierra_Logic-   E         97 4.2.36.3 under Payload remove ", among
075                                    other parameters" This is a complete
                                       list.
Sierra_Logic-   E         97 4.2.36.3 Table 93"FACT (32h)" s.b. "FDACT
076                                    (32h)"
Sierra_Logic-   E         98 4.2.37.3 under Payload remove ", among
077                                    other parameters" This is a complete
                                       list.
Sierra_Logic-   E         98 4.2.37.3 under Payload remove ", among
079                                    other parameters" This is a complete
                                       list.
QLogic-020          T     98 4.2.37.3, References FC-GS-4.                     Change to FC-GS-5.
                             list item
                             a).
Agilent-089     E         99 Table 97 Word 0, bits 31..24 has the wrong        Change to NDACT
                                       name
                               Sec/
Comment         tech      Phy. table/                                                                           O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure     Comment                               Proposed Solution                R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E           99 4.2.37.4 Last sentence "one of the reason
078                                      code explanations given in table 149"
                                         is very vague. What are the specific
                                         ones that apply to rejecting NACT?
                                         narrow this down to help
                                         interoperability.
Sierra_Logic-   E           99 4.2.37.4 Last sentence "one of the reason
080                                      code explanations given in table 149"
                                         is very vague. What are the specific
                                         ones that apply to rejecting NDACT?
                                         narrow this down to help
                                         interoperability.
Sierra_Logic-   E         107 4.2.41.3 remove "FDISC or" as this is specific
081                                      to PDISC.
QLogic-021          E     108 4.2.41.3, Reference to 4.2.8 has extra space.
                               1st para
                                                                               Fix it.
QLogic-022          E   108    4.2.42.3, Reference to 4.2.8, and 4.3.2 have    Fix.
                               1st para extra spaces.

McDATA-008      T         109 4.2.41.4 What does PDISC (and FDISC)              Clarify
                                       return if an extended login was
                                       performed?
QLogic-023          E   110   Table    Inconsistent table note format.
                              106                                               Make consistent.
Agilent-090     E         111 4.2.44.3 There is no description for Payload      Copy from 4.2.26.3
                                       fields
Emulex-029      E       112   4.2.45.1 At the end of the first paragraph is a   Change "implemented. (see FC-
                                       grammatically incorrect reference        FS-2) and (see FC-FS-2)." to
                                                                                "implemented (see FC-FS-2)."
Sierra_Logic-   E         112 4.2.45.1 "(see FC-FS-2) and (see FC-FS-2)."
082                                    s.b. "(See FC-FS-2.)"
Emulex-030      E       113   4.2.45.3 At the end of the Payload description Change "is shown in (see FC-FS-
                                       is a grammatically incorrect          2)." to "is shown in FC-FS-2."
                                       reference
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure   Comment                                      Proposed Solution               R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-031      E    113   4.2.45.4 In the second line of the LS_ACC             Change "is shown in (see FC-FS-
                                    description is a grammatically               2)." to "is shown in FC-FS-2."
                                    incorrect reference.
Emulex-032      E    113   4.2.46.1 At the end of the first paragraph is aChange "to its clients. (see FC-FS-
                                    grammatically incorrect reference     2)." to "to its clients (see FC-FS-
                                                                          2)."
Emulex-033      E    113   4.2.46.3 At the end of the Payload description Change "is shown in (see FC-FS-
                                    is a grammatically incorrect          2)" to "is shown in FC-FS-2."
                                    reference
Sierra_Logic-   T      113 4.2.45.3 Payload - This should be shown in
083                                 FC-LS. Move all of the CSR ELS and
                                    LS_ACC into FC-LS from FC-FS-2.

Sierra_Logic-   T      113 4.2.45.4 Move all of the CSR ELS & LS_ACC
084                                 into FC-LS from FC-FS-2
Sierra_Logic-   T      113 4.2.46   Move all of the CSU ELS & LS_ACC
085                                 into FC-LS from FC-FS-2.
Emulex-034      E    115   4.2.48.4 In list item c (LESB) is a             Change "(see FC-FS-2) for" to
                                    grammatically incorrect reference      "See FC-FS-2 for"
Sierra_Logic-   E      115 4.2.48.4 item c - "(see FC-FS-2)" s.b. "See FC-
086                                 FS-2"
Sierra_Logic-   E      120 4.2.50.3 "is shown" s.b. "are shown"
087
Agilent-091     E       121 4.2.50.4 Both byte and word are in the final         Remove "byte"
                                     sentence of the section
Sierra_Logic-   E       121 4.2.50.4 "byte word 1" s.b. "word 1"
088
Sierra_Logic-   E       121 4.2.50.4 "is shown" s.b. "are shown"
089
Sierra_Logic-   E       122 4.2.51.3 last paragraph "shall not fit into one
090                                  reply" s.b. "does not fit into one reply"

Emulex-035      E    123    4.2.51.4 In list item f (FC-4 Type) is a             Change "as defined in (see FC-
                                     grammatically incorrect reference           FS-2)." to "as defined in FC-FS-
                                                                                 2."
                               Sec/
Comment         tech      Phy. table/                                                                             O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure      Comment                                Proposed Solution                R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-092     E         123 4.2.51.4    Description for FC-4 Entry is listed   Remove one
                               e)         twice
Agilent-093     E         123 4.2.51.4    f) and g) should not be a continuation
                               f) & g)    of the previous list
IBM-01          T       123    4.2.42.3                                          The fabric should be required to
                                          This clause needs to address the
                                                                                 "remember" the N_Port ID
                                          situation where an FDISC LS-ACC
                                                                                 assigned to a given WWPN and
                                          has been mishandled and the
                                                                                 if a subsequent FDISC request
                                          receipient never recognized the
                                                                                 occurs using the same WWPN,
                                          assigned N_Port ID. The fabric may
                                                                                 as before, assign the same
                                          have successfully responded and
                                                                                 N_Port ID.
                                          reserved the N_Port ID and
                                          associated resources; however, the
                                          assigned ID will never be used by the
                                          receipient since it was never
                                          recognized. A subsequent retry of
                                          the FDISC, using the same WWPN
                                          could result in the assignment of a
                                          different N_Port ID.
IBM-02          E       123    4.2.43.3 The last sentence in Clause 4.2.43.3 It should be changed to ..."Table
                                        prior to Table 109 is incorrect.     109 summarizes the responses to
                                                                             FDISC (with SID not = to zeros),
                                                                             PDISC, and ADISC. Please see
                                                                             Clause 6.4.5, Table 153, for the
                                                                             case of FDISC (with SID = zeros).

Sierra_Logic-   E         124 4.2.52.4 Table 1 Note 1 - missing " at end of
091                                    "Periodic Scanning not supported

QLogic-024          E   124   Table    Inconsistent table note format.
                              128                                            Make consistent.
Sierra_Logic-   E         125 4.2.53.1 "The Error Interval Count is the
092                                    number Error Intervals" s.b. "The
                                       Error Interval Count is the number of
                                       Error Intervals ..."
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure   Comment                                 Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         125 4.2.53.1 last paragraph "out side" s.b.
093                                    "outside"
Sierra_Logic-   E         126 4.2.53.3 Fh in item b has "_15" instead of "-
094                                    15"
Sierra_Logic-   E         127 4.2.53.4 item a below Table 131 "(Rejected)
095                                    and return in words 2 and 3 those
                                       parameters that were acceptable ..."
                                       should this be "unacceptable"?
Sierra_Logic-   E         128 4.2.53.4 Next to last paragraph and last
096                                    paragraph "porting" s.b. "reporting"
McDATA-002      E         131 last     F_Port Controller is not the proper     Change "indicating the F_Port
                              paragra term. FC-FS-2 uses F_Port in Table       Controller of
                              ph       20.                                     the destination F_Port." to
                                                                               "indicating the F_Port of the
                                                                               destination." and "F_Port
                                                                               Controller of the originating
                                                                               F_Port." to "F_Port".
Emulex-036      T       131   4.2.53.4 The last paragraph of 4.2.53.4          Delete the last paragraph of
                                        describes the SBRP reply if the        4.2.53.4.
                                        default values flag in the SBRP
                                        request is set. That flag was deleted
                                        as a result of accepting 03-176v0 in
                                        April 2003.
Emulex-037      E       131   4.2.55.4 In the first sentence of the last        Change "as defined in (see FC-
                                        paragraph is a grammatically            FS-2)" to "as defined in FC-FS-2"
                                        incorrect reference
Sierra_Logic-   E         132 4.2.56.1. Core N_Port_Name ... has
097                           1         grammatical errors. re-write as "If the
                                        originating FC_Port is an N_Port, this
                                        field shall be set to its Core
                                        N_Port_Name. If the originating
                                        FC_Port is an F_Port, this field shall
                                        be set to the Core Switch_Name of
                                        the Switch it belongs to."
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure    Comment                                 Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         133 Table     Change title to "LS_RJT Reason
098                           139       Codes for EVFP"
Agilent-094     E         134 Table     There is no specification for           Remove last four rows of table
                              140       descriptors beyond Descriptor #3.       140
                                        Table 140 should not show use of
                                        descriptors beyond #3
Sierra_Logic-   E         134 4.2.56.2. Table 140 - Are Descriptor #1, #2,
099                           1         and #3 mandatory all of the time?
                                        The table implies that, but the text
                                        seems to indicate that you could
                                        have any combination of descriptors
                                        in any order.
Sierra_Logic-   T         135 4.2.56.2. Descriptor Type - need a table of
100                           1         currently defined descriptor types.
Sierra_Logic-   T         136 4.2.56.3 This clause does not convey any
101                                     meaning. Either clarify what this
                                        means or remove.
Brocade-20          T    137    4.3.2 The word "transmitter" should be          Make suggested change.
                                        replaced with the word "originator".
Emulex-038      E       143   5         At the end of the second paragraph      Change "specified in (see FC-FS-
                                        is a grammatically incorrect            2):" to "specified in FC-FS-2:"
                                        reference
Emulex-039      E       143   5         At the end of the last paragraph is a   Change "specified in (see FC-FS-
                                        grammatically incorrect reference       2)." to "specified in FC-FS-2."

Agilent-095     E         143 5        "Sequence Initiative" is not defined in add (see FC-FS-2)
                                       FC-LS
Agilent-096     E         143 5 b)     "Discard multiple Sequences             add (see FC-FS-2)
                                       Exchange Error Policy" is not defined
                                       in FC-LS
Agilent-097     E         143 5 e)     "Basic Accept" is not defined in FC- add (see FC-FS-2)
                                       LS
Sierra_Logic-   E         144      6.1 third paragraph - end of 1st sentence
102                                    "an explicit or implicit methods." s.b.
                                       "an explicit or implicit method."
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                     O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure     Comment                                  Proposed Solution                     R/W Resolution   in Rev
QLogic-025        T 144    6.1, last  Says "N_Port Login shall not affect
                           para on    the state of Class 4 connections in
                           page       the Fabric." Shouldn't this
                                      requirement be someplace in 6.3
                                      instead of the introduction?             Move it.
QLogic-026          E   144  6.1, 4th Strange space in 4.2.8 reference.        Fix.
                             para
Cisco-01            T    145   6.2.1 Fabric Login is also used to              Add item:
                                      determine if authentication with a       f) If the Nx_Port and the Fabric
                                      Fabric is supported/used.                support Authentication, it enables
                                                                               the subsequent Nx_Port to Fabric
                                                                               Authentication (see FC-SP).

Cisco-02            T    145     6.2.1   Fabric Login is also used to          Add item:
                                         determine if Virtual Fabrics are      g) If the N_Port and the Fabric
                                         supported/used.                       support Virtual Fabrics, it enables
                                                                               the subsequent negotiation of
                                                                               Virtual Fabrics parameters (see
                                                                               8.2).
Cisco-03            E    145     6.2.2.1 Spurious spaces inside the            Remove the spaces.
                                         parenthesis at the end of the first
                                         paragraph.
QLogic-027          E   145     6.2.2.1, Strange space in 4.2.8 reference.     Fix.
                                end of
                                1st para
Sierra_Logic-   E         146   6.2.2.3 1st paragraph on page - "the D_ID
103                                      shall be same value of XXXXXX."
                                         s.b. "the D_ID shall be assigned the
                                         same value of XXXXXX."
Sierra_Logic-   T         146   6.2.2.3 item e - sub item B - last paragraph -
104                                      This paragraph adds no meaning.
                                         Remove it.
Sierra_Logic-   E         148   6.2.3    Last paragraph "in (see 6.6.2)." s.b.
105                                      "in 6.6.2."
Sierra_Logic-   E         152   6.3.2.5 item a "as specified for in 6.6." s.b.
106                                      "as specified in 6.6."
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure       Comment                                  Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-040      E    153   6.3.7        An editor's note asks if material from   The material in FC-FS-2 Annex B
                                        FC-FS-2 annex B purportedly              is simply frame flow examples, in
                                        exemplifying N_Port Login frame flow     no way specific to N_Port Login.
                                        should be moved into FC-LS.              I do not believe it would be
                                                                                 appropriate to move it to FC-LS,
                                                                                 or even duplicate it here.

                                                                                 Subclause 6.3.7 provides nothing
                                                                                 specific to N_Port Login, and only
                                                                                 an obvious general reference to
                                                                                 FC-FS-2. I recommend removing
                                                                                 the whole subclause.



Sierra_Logic-   E         153 6.3.7     Editors note - leave this in FC-FS-2.
107
QLogic-028          T   153    6.3.7   Editor's note: {CWC: This is in Annex Answer it.
                                       B in FC-FS, should it be moved
                                       here?}
QLogic-029          E   153   6.3.3    Strange space in 6.2.3 reference.     Fix.
Sierra_Logic-   T         154 6.4.2    Last paragraph - This reference
108                                    should point to tables 152 and 157
                                       which have the default login values
                                       specified.
QLogic-030          T   154   6.4.2,   Editor's note: {CWC: This pointed to
                              3rd para 15.2 from FC-FS, that was removed
                                       by 04-057v3, where should it point
                                       now?}
                                                                             Fix the reference.
Agilent-098     E         156 Table    x'FFFFFE' formatting should be        FFFFFEh (3 places)
                              150      corrected
Agilent-099     E         156 Table    "confirm or reject S_ID per FC-FS     Change to "confirm or reject S_ID
                              150      15.2.2.3" should be updated           (see 6.2.2.3)" (2 places)
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                             O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure       Comment                              Proposed Solution                R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-100     E         156 Table        note 6 seems to be partially         Remove note 6
                              150          specifying the behavior of dNS
                                           Services -- shouldn't this
                                           specification be left up to FC-SW-4?

QLogic-031          E   156     Table      Inconsistent table note format.
                                150                                            Make consistent.
QLogic-032          T   156     Table      Multiple refernences to FC-FS.      Change to FC-FS-2.
                                150,
                                notes
QLogic-033          T     156   Table      Reference to FC-GS-4.               Change to FC-GS-5.
                                150,
                                notes
Agilent-102     E         157   Table      Note 2 describes a case that has no Move note 2 information to the
                                150 note   effect on PPN.                      FDISC ELS description (4.2.42)
                                2
Agilent-103     E         157   Table      Behavior for this case is now       Remove note 3 and "See note 3"
                                150 note   described in FC-LS (4.2.42). No     (3 places)
                                3          note is necessary
Agilent-104     E         157   Table      Primitive sequence protocol is      Remove note and replace "See
                                150 note   described in FC-FS-2                note 4" with "(see FC-FS-2)" (2
                                4                                              places)
Agilent-105     E         157   Table "Primitive Sequence Protocol" is         Capitalize it
                                150   capitalized in FC-FS-2
Agilent-106     E         160   6.6.1 "FC-2" and "FC-4" are used in a      Add to abbreviations
                                      number of places in FC-LS
                                Note 18
Sierra_Logic-   E         160   6.6.1 Note 19 is an incomplete sentence.
109                                   Fix or remove.
QLogic-034          T   160   Note 18 Why is this a note? Isn't this a
                                      normative statement?                 Make note normative.
QLogic-035          E   160   Note 19 Note breaks over page.               Fix page break.
Sierra_Logic-   E         161 Table   Numbr footnote for login extensions.
110                           151
QLogic-036          E   161   Table   Inconsistent table note format.
                              151                                          Make consistent.
                         Sec/
Comment       tech Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number        /edit page figure    Comment                                  Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-041    E    162   6.6.2.1   In the legend of table 152 is a legend   Make the recommended change,
                                   note "* The Class 1 Service              and in the table body, change the
                                   Parameters shall be used for Class       asterisks that reference it to its
                                   6. Each has the same applicability       table footnote number
                                   as Class 1" that is a normative
                                   statement. It needs to be a table
                                   footnote.
Emulex-041    E    162   6.6.2.1   In the legend of table 152 is a legend   Delete the legend note and in the
                                   note "** E_D_TOV resolution and          table body, change the double
                                   the corresponding value are only         asterisks that reference it to its
                                   meaningful in a point-to-point           table note number.
                                   topology and when doing PLOGI with
                                   an NL_Port on the same loop". It is
                                   not appropriately a legend note, and
                                   it duplicates an existing table note.

Agilent-107   E      162 Table     Asterisk note does not need to be        Move the asterisk note to the
                         152,      part of the table Legend                 main text body
                         Table
                         157
Agilent-108   E      162 Table     Note 2 is redundant with the double      Remove note 2
                         152       asterisk note
seagate-005   E      162 Table     The symbols * and ** are used in the     Change to supersricpt numbers
                         152       table to reference notes. There are      as other existing notes.
                                   also numbered notes.
seagate-006   E      162 Table     Notes 1 - 4 each include the word        Add "Note:" above the notes and
                         152       Note.                                    remove the repeating word Note.
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                       O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure        Comment                                   Proposed Solution                   R/W Resolution   in Rev
IBM-03          T    162   Table         The footnote under table 152 is           One possibility is to quote 21.2.13
                           152           unclear. "** E_D_TOV resolution and       and 15.6.2.10 and state that the
                                         the corresponding value are only          LS_ACC to the PLOGI should
                                         meaningful in a point-to-point            have the E_D_TOV value filled in
                                         topology and when doing PLOGI with        following these clauses. Another
                                         an NL_Port on the same loop." This        possibility is to quote Table 216
                                         appears to conflict with clauses          and state that since the Area and
                                         21.2.1.3 E_D_TOV and 15.6.2.10            Domain bytes of the S_ID are
                                         E_D_TOV. Some clarification is            different than that of the D_ID,
                                         needed.                                   these devices are on separate
                                                                                   loops and the E_D_TOV value is
                                                                                   to be ignored (and for robustness
                                                                                   is set to 0).
Sierra_Logic-   E         162 Table      Use a common footnote mechanism
111                           152        for all notes. e.g., label all of the
                                         footnotes from 1 to n and put them in
                                         the table as superscripts. Don't use *,
                                         **, and 1 - 4

QLogic-037          E   162   Table      Inconsistent table note format.
                              152                                                  Make consistent.
QLogic-038          E   162   Table      Strange space in this cell (full
                              152,       justify?)
                              Row
                              "Continu
                              ously
                              increasi
                              ng
                              relative
                              offset"                                             Fix.
Agilent-109     T         163 Table      Cells for Security bit applicability are Define meaning in Legend
                              152        "-". What meaning does "-" have in
                                         this context?
Sierra_Logic-   E         163 Table      The legend does not indicate what "-"
112                           152        indicates. Add this to the legend.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure    Comment                                  Proposed Solution                 R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-110     T         164 Table     Buffer-to-Buffer Receive Data Field      Change default to 256B
                              152       Size is minimum of 256 according to
                                        6.6.2.6
Agilent-111     E         165 6.6.2.3   The format for buffer-to-buffer credit   Copy Table 174 and slightly
                                        could be specified here, rather than     modified sentence above table
                                        requiring a reference to 6.6.5.9         174 to 6.6.2.3
Sierra_Logic-   E         170 6.6.2.9   Either here or in 3.4 add a reference
113                                     to FC-FS-2 for the definition of what
                                        R_A_TOV is. This only specifies how
                                        it shall be measured.

Agilent-112     E         171 6.6.2.10 Partial requirements are given for        Remove R_A_TOV sentence
                                       R_A_TOV. (Full requirements are in
                                       FC-FS-2.) R_A_TOV specs are not
                                       necessary here.
Agilent-113     E         171 6.6.5.1 Missing table number                       "Table 157…"
Sierra_Logic-   E         171 6.6.2.10 Next to last sentence in second
114                                    paragraph - move this to 6.6.2.9 as
                                       this is for R_A_TOV. As suggested in
                                       problem statement.
Sierra_Logic-   E         171 6.6.5.1 Beginning of paragraph is missing
115                                    table number. S.b. Table 157
seagate-007     E         172 Table    The symbol * is used to link a note to    Change to supersricpt number or
                              157      the table.                                letter.
Sierra_Logic-   E         172 Table    Change "*" to a normal footnote
116                           157      notation.
QLogic-039          E   172   Table    Inconsistent table note format.
                              157                                                Make consistent.
Agilent-114     E         173 Table    Word 1, bit 26 is missing                 is it Reserved?
                              157
Sierra_Logic-   T         173 Table    Word 1 Bit 26 is not defined. If it is
117                           157      reserved - add to table as reserved.
Agilent-115     T         174 Table    Receive Data Field Size default           Change to 256B
                              157      should be 256B per 6.6.5.7
QLogic-040          T   175   Note 22 Why is this a note? Isn't this a
                                       normative statement?                      Make note normative.
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                            O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure    Comment                                  Proposed Solution              R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         176 6.6.5.4.2 third paragraph "by setting bit the ..."
118                           "         remove the word "bit
Sierra_Logic-   T         177 6.6.5.4.4 This states that there is a guarantee
119                                     of sequential delivery. This is only
                                        true in the absence of any fabric re-
                                        configuration events.
Sierra_Logic-   E         178 6.6.5.4.5 End of second sentence - "Priority
120                                     and Preemption is available" s.b.
                                        "are"
Sierra_Logic-   E         178 6.6.5.4.6 1st paragraph "... Service by set the
121                           .1        Preference ..." s.b. "setting"
QLogic-041          T   178   6.6.5.4.5 Says "See FC-FS-2." as a stand
                                        alone para.                              For what? Should this be moved
                                                                                 to end of next paragraph?
Sierra_Logic-   E         182 6.6.5.5.3 Sentence before table 169 is missing
122                                     table number - should be 169.

Sierra_Logic-   T         182 6.6.5.5.3 end of last paragraph - refers to
123                                     6.6.5.5.4 which does not have any
                                        additional requirements and refers to
                                        FC-FS-2 with no description. Add
                                        descriptive text in 6.6.5.5.4.
Agilent-117     E         183 6.6.5.5.4 The ACK generation assistance bit      Replace "See FC-FS-2." with
                                        number is not specified                "Usage of the ACK generation
                                                                               assistance bit (word 0, bit 9) is
                                                                               specified in FC-FS-2."
Sierra_Logic-   T         183 6.6.5.5.4 This clause does not reference the
124                                     appropriate bits, and does not give
                                        any description of the functionality.
                                        Pull this functionality in from FC-FS-
                                        2, and put the appropriate bit
                                        reference in.
Sierra_Logic-   E         183 6.6.5.6.2 1st paragraph "may or may not
125                                     capable" s.b. "may or may not be
                                        capable"
                              Sec/
Comment         tech     Phy. table/                                                                                 O/A/             Done
number          /edit    page figure    Comment                              Proposed Solution                       R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E         183 6.6.5.6.2 end of 1st paragraph "clas or
126                                     service" s.b. "class of service"
Sierra_Logic-   E         183 6.6.5.6.2 Second paragraph is missing table
127                                     number in reference. should be table
                                        170
Sierra_Logic-   E         183 6.6.5.6.2 second paragraph "ACK_0 is support
128                                     is" s.b. "ACK_0 is supported is"

Sierra_Logic-   E         183 6.6.5.6.2 paragraph after table 170 "ACK_0as"
129                                     is missing a space.
QLogic-042          T   183   6.6.5.5.4 All it says here is "See FC-FS-2".     For what? Really need more
                                                                               description here.
Agilent-118     E         185 6.6.5.6.4 Much of the description here           More from the paragraph starting
                                        specifies error policy. This           "In either Discard or Process …"
                                        information belongs in FC-FS-2         through the end of 6.6.5.6.4 to FC-
                                        instead of FC-LS.                      FS-2
QLogic-043          E   186   6.6.5.7, Paragraph is indented.
                              First
                              para                                             Remove indent.
QLogic-044          T   186   Table     This is a strange table. Do we really
                              173       need a table should that FFh means Remove the table since it states
                                        255 decimal?                           the bleeding obvious.
QLogic-045          T   186   Note 26 Are we doing math?                       Remove note, it doesn't really say
                                                                               anything other than someone is
                                                                               able to do math.
Sierra_Logic-   E         187 6.6.5.9 End of 1st paragraph "Cnd-to-end"
130                                     s.b. End-to-end" Also be consistent
                                        with capitalization of this. There are
                                        both cases used when not at the
                                        beginning of a sentence.

Sierra_Logic-   E         187 6.6.5.11 CR_TOV has no definition. It
131                                    indicates the resolution, but not its
                                       use.
                         Sec/
Comment       tech Phy. table/                                                                                    O/A/             Done
number        /edit page figure    Comment                                     Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
QLogic-046      E 187    6.6.5.11, Change "Therefore" to "(e.g.,"
                         second
                         sentenc
                         e

QLogic-047        T     187 Table     This is a strange table.. Do we really
                            174       need a table showing that 32,766
                                      binary means 32,766 decimal?             Remove the table since it states
                                                                               the bleeding obvious.
Agilent-119   E         188 6.6.7.4   Security Key Distribution Server is      Add "obsoleted" to section title
                                      obsolete according to GC-GS-5 Note
                                      54
Emulex-043    E       195   7.1.1     In the first line of the third paragraph Change "affect" to "effect".
                                      of 7.1.1, "affect" is incorrectly used.

Emulex-044    E       195   7.1.1     The first sentence of the fourth         Remove the first sentence of the
                                      paragraph of 7.1.1 is redundant to       fourth paragraph of 7.1.1.
                                      table 4. As part of an early effort in
                                      FC-LS (or was it late in FC-FS), such
                                      redundancies concerning responses
                                      when not logged in were to be
                                      removed.
Emulex-045    T       195   7.1.1     In the last sentence of the fourth       Change "login" to "Process
                                      paragraph of 7.1.1, "login" is too       Login".
                                      general a term for the list it
                                      introduces.
Emulex-046    E       196   7.1.1     In the first sentence of the last        Change "existing" to
                                      paragraph on page 196, the words         "established".
                                      "established" and "existing" are used
                                      to identify what is supposed to be the
                                      same image pair. The use of different
                                      words is confusing.
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure     Comment                                   Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Emulex-047      E    197   7.1.1      In the second sentence of the last        Change "If the Nx_Port to the
                                      paragraph, the first clause is            PRLI request receives no valid
                                      awkwardly written.                        response," to "If the Nx_Port that
                                                                                originates a PRLI request
                                                                                receives no valid response,".
Emulex-048      E    199   7.1.4.1    The fourth paragraph of 7.1.4.1           Change "PA required by
                                      should be the title of the next           originator, supported by
                                      subclause at the same level.              responder" to "7.1.4.2 PA
                                                                                required by originator, supported
                                                                                by responder" and renumber
                                                                                following subclause headers as
                                                                                necessary.
Emulex-049      E    200   7.2        In the second sentence of the             Change "If the Nx_Port to the
                                      seventh paragraph of 7.2 (last            PRLO request receives no valid
                                      paragraph on page 200), the first         response," to "If the Nx_Port that
                                      clause is awkwardly written.              originates a PRLO request
                                                                                receives no valid response,".
Emulex-050      E    201   7.2        The eighth paragraph of 7.2 (first        Remove the eighth paragraph of
                                      paragraph on page 201) is redundant 7.2 (first paragraph on page 201).
                                      to table 4. As part of an early effort in
                                      FC-LS (or was it late in FC-FS), such
                                      redundancies concerning responses
                                      when not logged in were to be
                                      removed.
Sierra_Logic-   E      203 Figure 6   Labels on transitions did not come
132                                   out in PDF
Sierra_Logic-   E      203 Figure 6   Need to define the state machine
133                                   terminology
Sierra_Logic-   E      203 Figure 6   What does the (n) refer to with some
134                                   of the states?
McDATA-009      T      204 State P2   Should the reader be referred to FC Just refer to FC SP and give
                                      SP for a discussion on names              example names, with no
                                      instead? Certainly, the protocol          implication of what should or
                                      allows all the names listed. Should       should not be used.
                                      FC SP or FC SP 2 help with some
                                      recommendations?
                             Sec/
Comment       tech      Phy. table/                                                                              O/A/             Done
number        /edit    page figure  Comment                                   Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Cisco-04        E      206 Figure 7 The words "VF_ID List" are not            Enlarge the text boxes to
                                    shown in the text boxes                   correctly show "Locally-Enabled
                                    corresponding to the first two arrows.    VF_ID List".

QLogic-048        E     206 Figure 7, Closing paren missing                   Add it.
                            first step
                            on right

QLogic-049        E     206 Figure 7, Closing paren missing                   Add it.
                            2nd step
                            on left

Emulex-051    T       210    Annex A I am at a loss to recall why we chose With the concurrence of the FC-
                                     to put Annex A in FC-LS rather than FS-2 group, move FC-LS Annex
                                     FC-FS-2. Annex A describes the        A to FC-FS-2.
                                     Link Error Status Block, and makes
                                     no mention of the ELSs that report it
                                     (RLS and RPS). FC-FS-2 defines the
                                     LESB, and FC-LS makes no
                                     reference to its own Annex A.

Agilent-122   E         210 Annex A This Annex fits more closely to FC-       Move Annex A to FC-FS-2
                                    FS-2
Emulex-052    E       211   Annex A If Annex A remains in FC-LS, its          Renumber table 182 as table A.1
                                    table 182 needs to be renumbered
                                    as an annex table.
Brocade-27        T    211   Table This table leaves me mystified. It         Review the text to be sure that
                              182   does not appear to have enough            this is properly explained.
                                    references to information in this or      Alternatively, delete the table.
                                    another standard to be meaningful.
                                    If the table is removed, there are also
                                    a whole bunch of abbreviations that
                                    should be removed in clause 3.4,
                                    including OL1, OL2, and many
                                    others.
                           Sec/
Comment       tech    Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number        /edit   page figure      Comment                                 Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
QLogic-050      E      211 Table       Inconsistent table note format.
                           182                                            Make consistent.
Agilent-101   E       156- Table     "Permanent Port Name" used in title add (see FC-GS-4) and add
                       158 150       is undefined in FC-LS                Permanent Port Name to 3.2:
                                                                          "The Permanent Port Name is the
                                                                          Name_Identifier associated with a
                                                                          physical Nx_Port (see FC-GS-4)."
                                                                          Remove "See FC-GS-4 …" from
                                                                          note 5.
Agilent-116   E       182, 6.6.5.5.3 Some paragraphs here describe        Move the paragraphs starting "If
                      184 and        usage of ACK_0, whereas this         ACK_0 is supported,…" and
                           6.6.5.6.2 section is about how a port would    "ACK_0 may be used…" to FC-
                                     specify whether it supports ACK_0. FS-2
                                     A much more complete description of
                                     ACK_0 usage is included in FC-FS-
                                     2.
Agilent-120   E       188, 6.6.7.2 It would be nice to have references Add "See FC-xx for specification
                      189 through to the specifications that define these of this server" to each section.
                           6.6.7.9 Servers                                Xx=FS-2 for Multicast, Clock
                                                                          Sync., Alias & QoS. Xx=SW-4 for
                                                                          Management & Directory. Xx=GS-
                                                                          4 for Time.

Agilent-121   T       197, 7.1.1       "Following the completion of ABTS       Possible alternative wording: "All
                      201 (top of      protocol, all open Exchanges shall      open exchanges over the image
                           page        be terminated by invoking the Abort     pair shall also be terminated
                           197), 7.2   Sequence Protocol-Last Sequence         using the ABTS protocol."
                           (2nd to     (ABTS-LS) protocol." is confusing.
                           last        First, ABTS-LS is not defined.
                           paragra     Second, it implies there are multiple
                           ph)         ABTS's utilized, but in FCP-3, the
                                       ABTS is can be used to abort both
                                       sequences and exchanges.
                             Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                   O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure        Comment                              Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-048     T     55, 57 4.2.25.3    Service Parameter pages are fixed to Change: "The right-most two bits
                             a),         4 words per page                     shall be zeros" to "This field shall
                             4.2.25.4                                         be set to 10h."
                             a)
Agilent-054     T     60, 62 4.2.26.3    Logout Parameter pages are fixed to Change: "The right-most two bits
                             a),         4 words per page                    shall be zeros" to "This field shall
                             4.2.26.4                                        be set to 10h."
                             a)
Agilent-055     E     61, 63     Table   Asterisk note is redundant with a)    Remove asterisk note
                                   52,   below
                             Table 54

Agilent-056     E    61, 64 following Originator Process_Associator and        Add items to the list following
                            Table     Responder Process_Associator             Tables 52 and 54 that describe
                            52,       fields are not described                 these fields:
                            following                                          "{Originator|Responder}
                            Table 54                                           Process_Associator: Identifies
                                                                               the process or group of
                                                                               processes within the
                                                                               {Originator|Responder} (see FC-
                                                                               FS-2)."
Agilent-058     T    65, 66 4.2.28.3     Image Pair ID pages are fixed to 4    Change: "The right-most two bits
                            a),          words per page                        shall be zeros" to "This field shall
                            4.2.28.4                                           be set to 10h."
                            a)
Agilent-059     E    66, 68 following    Originator Process_Associator and     Add items to the list following
                            Table        Responder Process_Associator          Tables 57 and 59 that describe
                            57,          fields are not described              these fields:
                            following                                          "{Originator|Responder}
                            Table 59                                           Process_Associator: Identifies
                                                                               the process or group of
                                                                               processes within the
                                                                               {Originator|Responder} (see FC-
                                                                               FS-2)."
Sierra_Logic-   E    72 4   2.29.3       Table 64 - "Match" s.b. "match"
059                                      throughout table.
                           Sec/
Comment       tech Phy. table/                                                                          O/A/             Done
number        /edit page figure      Comment                                 Proposed Solution          R/W Resolution   in Rev
Agilent-063   E     72, 75 Table     All other uses within 4.2.29 use        Change column heading to
                           63,       "Requesting Nx_Port N_Port_Name"        "Requesting Nx_Port
                           Table 66  rather than "Requesting Nx_Port         N_Port_Name"
                                     Port_Name"
Agilent-081   E       89-90 4.2.32.4 Beginning at "Specific Link Incident
                            g)       Record Data is subject to the
                                     client's…" and ending at the end of
                                     this section, the information given
                                     does not specify requirements, but
                                     seems to be guidance for people
                                     who will specify future Specific Link
                                     Incident Record formats. Does this
                                     kind of information belong here?


Brocade-01        E   Cover   Cover   Remove fax number for Snively          Make suggested change.
                        Sec/
Comment      tech Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number       /edit page figure Comment                                 Proposed Solution                    R/W Resolution   in Rev
Brocade-19     T Many 3.2.nn There are a collection of terms           Make suggested change.
                               defined in the glossary associated
                               with distinguishing classes of bytes
                               (data or special). The definitions
                               tend to refer mostly to each other
                               and to be difficult to sort out. Note
                               that many of these words actually
                               define concepts that are outside the
                               scope of FC-LS. As an example,
                               Annex A counts transmission word
                               errors, which only works for links that
                               detect errors on word boundaries.
                               Since FC can be transmitted over
                               numerous types of links, some of
                               which do not even have the concept
                               of word boundaries, these words
                               should be deleted from the glossary
                               and, if necessary, the referenced
                               locations for them should be
                               reworded to not use them. The
                               glossary words to be deleted are:
                               3.2.131 (special character), 3.2.132
                               (special code), 3.2.138
                               (Transmission Character), 3.2.139
                               (transmission code),
                               The rewrites need to go into non-
                               deleted text where the word is used,
                               though most cases should be
                               deleted.


Brocade-33    E   Many    Many    The term "all classes mark invalid"   Review to see that the wording is
                                  shows up several times. As far as I   correct.
                                  can tell, it should be rewritten to
                                  read:
                                  "all classes marked Invalid,"
                           Sec/
Comment         tech Phy. table/                                                                                        O/A/             Done
number          /edit page figure            Comment                                 Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
Sierra_Logic-   E    many many               "The xxx ELS shall be used to ..."
045                                          should be changed to "The xxx ELS
                                             is used to ..." Unless a specific ELS
                                             is mandatory the description should
                                             not start with a shall as it does
                                             throughout the standard.

Sierra_Logic-   E       Multip Multiple "in (see FC-FS-2)" s.b. "in FC-FS-2."
042                     le              There are 10 occuarnces of this.

QLogic-000          T   v            Forward, Reference to FC-FS.                    Change to FC-FS-2.
                                     1st para

Brocade-02          E       vi       Forewor Actual title of T11 has been changed Make suggested change.
                                        d    to "Fibre Channel Interfaces".

Agilent-001     E             viii           Introduction uses "FC-GS-4" instead Change to "FC-LS"
                                             of "FC-LS" (2 places)
seagate-001     E             viii Introduct first paragraph, first sentence, FC- Change FC-GS-4 to FC-LS. FC-
                                   ion       GS-4 should be FC-LS                 GS-4 could be added the family
                                                                                  of standards in the next sentence.

seagate-002     E              viii Introduct second paragraph, first sentence FC- Change the sentence to: "FC-LS
                                    ion       GS-4 should be FC-LS                  defines requests and replies that
                                                                                    may be utilized to manage and
                                                                                    monitor the Fibre Channel
                                                                                    transport." Delete the second
                                                                                    sentence.
Brocade-03          E       viii Introduct Second sentence should include           Make suggested change.
                                        ion   INCITS number for FC-FS.
HP-001          E              viii Introduct In FC-LS (05-345v1), the Introduction
                                    ion       section on page viii talks about FC-
                                              GS-4, surely a case of the dreaded
                                              cut and paste syndrome!
                        Sec/
Comment      tech Phy. table/                                                                               O/A/             Done
number       /edit page figure      Comment                              Proposed Solution                  R/W Resolution   in Rev
QLogic-001     T viii   Introduct   Looks like a cut and past from FC-   Rewrite to be appropriate to FC-
                        ion         GS-4.                                LS.
                        second
                        paragra
                        h
QLogic-002     T viii   Introduct   Reference to FC-GS-4.                Change to FC-GS-5.
                        ion, 1st
                        para
QLogic-003     T viii   Introduct   Reference to FC-FS.                  Change to FC-FS-2.
                        ion, 1st
                        para
QLogic-004     T viii   Introduct   Reference to FC-SW-2.
                        ion, 1st
                        para                                            Change to FC-SW-4.
McDATA-003   T                      FDISC reply clarification           Implement 05-249v2
EMC-001      T                      iFCP running in address translation
                                    mode has a dependency on new
                                    ELS's containing embedded
                                    addresses, as address translation
                                    needs to be defined for them. FC-LS
                                    or a successor is a better place to
                                    deal with this than the IETF (and
                                    ideally, all ELS specifics would be
                                    removed from iFCP). This is
                                    probably an FC-LS-2 item in tandem
                                    with IETF revising iFCP.

				
DOCUMENT INFO