RE: last call before interop is resolved?

I agree.  It seems to me the community would be better served by allowing
this choice,  vs  taking steps to prevent it.

Also,  the RDMAP Security section changes are done.  Bernard Metzler from
IBM created an updated version of the RDMAP Spec that includes the changes
highlighted in the e-mail I sent on 11/13, with a subject of [rddp] RDMAP
Security Section.  However, before posting that version to the RDDP
reflector, I was waiting for *any* response on the 11/13 e-mail.  I have
not seen *any* response on that e-mail.

If folks could please respond to that e-mail as well,  I would be happy to
make this update and any additional RDMAP Security Section updates next
week and post the result to the reflector.

Renato J Recio
Chief Architect, eServer I/O
IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member IBM Academy of Technology
Tel 512-838-3685, T/L 678-3685



                                                                                                                                             
                      "Caitlin Bestler"                                                                                                      
                      <caitlinb@silique        To:       "Jim Pinkerton" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>                      
                      nt.com>                  cc:                                                                                           
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?                                    
                      rddp-bounces@ietf                                                                                                      
                      .org                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                             
                      12/03/2004 01:34                                                                                                       
                      PM                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                             




I agree. The *most* that we might have to change is to make it clear that
an
iWARP implementation *may* choose to interoperate with the RDMAC versions,
and that there is nothing in the main drafts that forbids this.

The requirements on what is a "valid" version number is the only thing that
might have to be clarified, so I think it is doable. I also do not think it
is
necessary, since interoperability is extra functionality which has no
impact
on the pure IETF protocol. But it is better to be clear that more liberal
interpretation
of "valid" that enables interoperability *is* legitimate and even ever so
slightly
encouraged (but probably not to the level of a "should").


 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
 Jim Pinkerton
 Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:52 AM
 To: [email protected]
 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
 [email protected]
 https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

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