Re: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?

[Michael Krause <krause at cup.hp.com>]

I concur.  We need to get a good handle on interoperability since
there will be a time differential between the two sets of specs relative
to deployment.  The draft proposal makes a good start on how to
document the minor changes required to resolve this issue. 
Therefore, we should drive to get closure no later than January which
should have minimum impact on last call.

Mike


At 05:51 AM 12/3/2004, Jim Pinkerton wrote:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4D93F.32F78B0F"

 
I am very concerned that the current path we?re 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 ?valid? 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