Re: [Ips] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ips-iser-00.txt
Caitlin Bestler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sep 15, 2004, at 8:00 PM, Mike Ko wrote: > Caitlin, > > Section 7.3.6 clause 1 states that: > > 1. It MUST ensure a valid local STag for the I/O Buffer and a valid > local mapping that associates the Initiator Task Tag (ITT) to > the local STag. This may involve allocating a valid local STag > and establishing a local mapping. > > To clarify further. There is an inherent difference in the wire protocol between STag used for RDMA Writes and STags that are used for RDMA Read Replies. STags used by RDMA Writes are explicitly distributed by the ULP and their use is selected by the ULP. Therefore *any* local interface MUST provide the ability to the consumer to create an STag matching a specific buffer (with a subset of the authority the consumer already had to access that buffer). The STag used in an RDMA Read Reply MUST be a simple echo of the value supplied in the request. It is NOT exposed to the ULP. Therefore an RDMAP implementation MAY use a different algorithm for allocating and tracking STags for RDMA Reads than it uses for RDMA Writes. Further, there are certain security, feature and efficiency benefits for taking this approach. The tradeoffs between the "just like tagged" and "just like untagged" is complex, and not really appropriate for either the IPS or RDDP -- but it is also not appropriate for iSER to presume which choice has been made.