RE: URGENT: Local Peer and Remote Peer - Do we need RDDP changes?

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:10 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [rddp] URGENT: Local Peer and Remote Peer - Do we 
> need RDDP changes?
> Importance: High
> 
> We have an issue that requires some immediate attention.  I 
> was under the impression that the issues with Local Peer and 
> Remote Peer usage found in review of the iSER draft did not 
> require any changes to the RDMAP and DDP drafts.  I have now 
> been informed that this is not a completely obvious or 
> universally held viewpoint.  We need to decide whether to 
> change these drafts in fairly short order.
> 
> The issue is that depending on context, the terms "Local 
> Peer" and "Remote Peer" in the RDMAP and DDP drafts may refer 
> to either the RDMAP/DDP protocol implementation or the ULP 
> that is using RDMAP/DDP.
> See below for a longer explanation that Mike Ko originally 
> wrote last week.
> 
> We need to choose one of the following two alternatives:
> (1) The intent of each usage is clear from context.  An implementer
> 	will have no difficulty understanding what was meant.  No
> 	text change is needed.

After rescanning the drafts, I am thoroughly convinced that
each usage of "Remote Peer" or "Local Peer" in the text is
unambiguous. The terms are generally used to refer to the
consumer of RDMA services. The terms are frequently used
in conjunction with the specific layer, i.e. "Remote Peer
ULP". The few cases where there is no explicit clarification
the subject is clear in context, for example that the Local
Peer is a consumer of RDMA service (and hence is the ULP).

The definitions are the closest there is to misleading text.
But there is definitely nothing that would leave any question
in the minds of any implementer as to what layer was responsible
for implementing any specific behavior described.