Re: RDDP Security - misc comments, 1-16

On Jan 21, 2004, at 6:56 PM, Jim Pinkerton wrote:

>
> > (14) 7.1.2 Second bullet should use the term window or cross 
> reference to
>
> > the appropriate specification so that the reader can understand how 
> this
>
> > is
>
> > somewhat a local issue and that there are tools defined to help 
> provide
>
> > this service.
>
> >
>
>  
>
> I’ve intentionally tried to stay away from Verbs-isms in this 
> document. Also, I can’t
> reference the verbs spec if it does not have a path to RFC status (as 
> informational,
> experimental, standards, whatever).  Thus I’ve tried in general to 
> describe issues
> in the abstract, without talking about a specific implementation. Or 
> if talking about
> specific implementations, try to provide a variety of choices, without 
> mandating a
> choice. I agree that the document could be more detailed in 
> implementation, but I
> think that also means that we then have to decide as a group on 
> standardizing a
> host to RNIC interface. Personally, I’d rather not gate RDMAP/DDP/etc 
> on this
> issue. Clearly they are gated on the security draft.

It may be proper/useful to acknowledge that many local interfaces will
have a distinction between relatively expensive registrations 
("regions")
and a lighter-weight mechanism more suitable for generating disposable
STags ("windows"), and that a local interface lacking a mechansism
suitable for disposable STags may improperly tempt applications into
the dangers of over-exposing their memory.