RE: Ecosystems cost of additional specs (RE: Please re ad - proposed WG termination)

 


From: Michael Krause [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:46 AM

At 12:46 PM 9/2/2005, Dror Goldenberg wrote:





  

OTOH, if it's really a Good Idea, the choice is not really between a


standard and no IPoIB-CM; it's between a standard and multiple, possibly
incompatible IPoIB-CM variants. Nobody can prevent people from implementing
from the current draft, assigning their own service-ID(?) and just shipping.



[dg] Standards are always better than interoperability issues. And, most of
the ipoib-cm is done so far, so I really see value in completing the
standardization work. There is a really good chance that many systems can
benefit from it.


Somewhat an aside, but it is ironic that standard APIs are often ignored /
deemed "crap" by some even if many systems can benefit from them yet this
spec which is likely to be implemented by a single OS and used only in
perhaps a subset of deployments is deemed worthy. Apologies for the tangent.

Mike  
 

Luckily ipoib-cm is not an API, it's just a wire protocol. In which case, I
haven't yet heard the "crap" word being said on wire protocol standards :)

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib