[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?
I agree. It seems to me the community would be better served by allowing this choice, vs taking steps to prevent it.
Also, the RDMAP Security section changes are done. Bernard Metzler from IBM created an updated version of the RDMAP Spec that includes the changes highlighted in the e-mail I sent on 11/13, with a subject of [rddp] RDMAP Security Section. However, before posting that version to the RDDP reflector, I was waiting for *any* response on the 11/13 e-mail. I have not seen *any* response on that e-mail.
If folks could please respond to that e-mail as well, I would be happy to make this update and any additional RDMAP Security Section updates next week and post the result to the reflector.
Renato J Recio
Chief Architect, eServer I/O
IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member IBM Academy of Technology
Tel 512-838-3685, T/L 678-3685
![Inactive hide details for "Caitlin Bestler" <caitlinb at siliquent.com>]()
"Caitlin Bestler" <caitlinb at siliquent.com>
I agree. The *most* that we might have to change is to make it clear that an
iWARP implementation *may* choose to interoperate with the RDMAC versions,
and that there is nothing in the main drafts that forbids this.
The requirements on what is a "valid" version number is the only thing that
might have to be clarified, so I think it is doable. I also do not think it is
necessary, since interoperability is extra functionality which has no impact
on the pure IETF protocol. But it is better to be clear that more liberal interpretation
of "valid" that enables interoperability *is* legitimate and even ever so slightly
encouraged (but probably not to the level of a "should").
From: rddp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rddp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Pinkerton
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:52 AM
To: rddp at ietf.org
Subject: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?
I am very concerned that the current path weâre on is to try to do last call before we close on the interop issues with the RDMA Consortium protocols. To me this would be a mistake because it effectively fragments the market when in fact we have a very concrete interop proposal on the table that appears to be holding water, which has very specific text change recommendations that appear to be straightforward to put into the specs.
Can we quickly get through the interop changes to MPA/DDP/RDMAP? Seems like the only outstanding issue raised so far is what is the exact text used in the RDMAP/DDP specs on what is a âvalidâ version number (i.e. do we leave it up to the vendor, or do we state something more explicit). That seems like a pretty small outstanding issue?
Further, it seems like we should be able to get out updated drafts within a few days which incorporate the recommendations, and the recommendations do not have significant complexity to implement in the normative body of the specs (unlike the outstanding issue of normative statements in the security chapters of DDP/RDMAP (!!).
Jim
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
rddp at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
rddp at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp