Local Peer and Remote Peer - Conclusion

<WG Chair Hat Off>
I've reviewed the uses of the word "peer" in both drafts, and I
concur with Caitlin and Jim that they do not contain ambiguity
problems that require text changes.
</WG Chair Hat Off>

<WG Chair Hat On>
Since the response to the review request has been three technical
opinions that no changes are needed, I believe the rough consensus
of the RDDP WG is that no changes are needed.  As chair, I will
proceed to move these drafts through the publication process on
that basis.  Any objections to this conclusion need to be posted
to the list.
</WG Chair Hat On>

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
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Pinkerton [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:55 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler; Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [rddp] URGENT: Local Peer and Remote Peer - Do 
> we need RDDPchanges?
> 
> 
> I agree with Caitlin's summary. The key here is a specification that
> clearly states how to interoperate. My scan of the texts agrees with
> Caitlin's summary - when reading the text it's always clear on whether
> it's the ULP or the RDMAP/DDP protocol implementation. 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of
> > Caitlin Bestler
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:01 PM
> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [rddp] URGENT: Local Peer and Remote Peer - Do we need
> > RDDPchanges?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----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.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rddp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
>