[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Good point Jim. I agree. A very small amount of work now (most of which you and John have already done) will remove ambiguities that would otherwise confuse those trying create interoperability tests and linger on for at least one generation.
 
Regards,
Dwight


From: rddp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rddp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Pinkerton
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:52 AM
To: rddp at ietf.org
Subject: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?

 

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