Subject: RE: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?

From: "Caitlin Bestler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:34:28 -0800

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

---

From: Renato Recio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:53:48 -0600

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-masked]>, <[email-masked]>                      
                      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-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
 Jim Pinkerton
 Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:52 AM
 To: [email-masked]
 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

---

From: "Barron, Dwight" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 09:05:11 -0600

Good point Jim. I agree. A very small amount of work now (most of which
you and John have already done) will remove ambiguities that would
otherwise confuse those trying create interoperability tests and linger
on for at least one generation. 
 
Regards,
Dwight

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Jim Pinkerton
	Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:52 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [rddp] last call before interop is resolved?

	 

	Jim