| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.rddp |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
> From reading your email, it sounds like you are thinking there is a
> layering violation? Is that your point?
No. It appears that invalidation is a rather important mechanism
for actually using STags, and so, aside from historical reasons, what's
the rationale for it being an RDMAP operation rather than a DDP operation?
Another way to ask this is: does absence of STag invalidation from DDP
significantly reduce the usefulness of DDP without RDMAP? Alternatively,
is invalidation sufficiently ULP (wrt DDP, e.g., RDMAP)-specific that
it needs to be left to DDP's ULPs to implement and customize in their
own fashion?
If yes, the next question will be why it belongs in the RDMAP layer,
as opposed to RDMAP providing local access to the DDP interface for
STag invalidation, and letting ULPs figure out how to
communicate STags when remote invalidation is in order.
I don't have a preconceived notion of the answers, but there's some
design rationale that needs to be brought out and discussed here.
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------