Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] AD review of IPoIB specs

From: "H.K. Jerry Chu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:20:09 -0700 (PDT)

COmments are embeded in the text below (again speaking as a co-author,
not as a co-chair).

>In response to the WG's request to advance the following documents, I
>have completed my preliminary review of the following documents:
>
>     draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniband-02.txt
>     draft-ietf-ipoib-link-multicast-02.txt
>     draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-01.txt
>
>General questions/comments.
>
>I think it would be preferable to merge the following two documents into
>a single document:
>
>     draft-ietf-ipoib-link-multicast-02.txt
>     draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-01.txt
>
>One can't implement the second without the first, since it makes use
>of the multicast stuff. There is also very little text in the
>multicast document that is needed to describe the implementation
>requirements.

The draft covers not only multicast, but also how to define IP subnets
and link attributes on top IB, which is itself a network. (See my other
mail.) All the sections from 5.0 forward are needed for IPoIB. The only
background info is section one through four.

>Given the overall length of the two documents (both
>under 15 pages) I don't see keeping them separate to be particularly
>important.

More materials will be added to the link and multicast draft once
the 1.1 spec is released. So the draft will likely to grow a few
pages.

>
>There is also a fair amount of background/info text in the multicast
>document that doesn't need to be part of the spec. I think the

See my previous mail. the draft must describe how to define IP link/subnet 
boundary otherwise one doesn't even have a well-defined link layer to
work with, given the gazillion layer-2/3 parameters provided by IB.

>information is useful to have (as background), but some of it also
>talks about possible implementation choices for IPoIB, which doesn't
>make so much sense now that those choices have been made.

An alternative to merging the two standard tracked drafts is to
subsume all the background info from the requirement/architecture
draft. We haven't paid much attention to the requirement and
architecture draft so far. Now that the two standard tracked drafts
are completed, the "requirement" part is not needed any more. There
is also a logistic reason for folding the third draft into the first
two. It will be one less draft to review and scrutinize. Also it seems
odd to have standard tracked drafts dependent on an informational
draft.

The above is only my personal opinion though.

Jerry

>
>Then, there is the expired document:
>
>      draft-ietf-ipoib-architecture-01.txt
>
>Has the WG decided to just drop that document? I ask because it seems
>like much of the background info in the above documents above might
>better be in a general architecture/background document (unless that
>document has been dropped completely). But having some
>background/overview info seems useful, since I gather  there is no
>such similar document available via IBTA.
>
>Specific comments on the various documents will go out in separate
>messages.
>
>Thomas
>_______________________________________________
>IPoverIB mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:22:59 -0700 (PDT)

> >multicast document that is needed to describe the implementation

    I am amenable to the above suggestion. It might be easier to make
    the decision once the new version of the architecture draft is
    submitted. 

    I concede that we have added quite a bit of background/advice in
    the multicast draft. Intrinsically the draft defines the
    following: 

	1. The mapping from IP multicast addresses to IB
    2. The requirement to setup the 'broadcast group' and its relation
       to the P_Key. Also defining Q_Key, and other IB multicast
       paramters. 

    3. Multicast routing - this section needs to change due to IBA 1.1
    changes 

> odd to have standard tracked drafts dependent on an informational

I don't agree with the above. Background information about the
InfiniBand architecture does not make the standard track drafts
dependent on it. It is possible to get the details from the IBA
specification but the draft collects all information relevant to IPoIB
in a concise form for easy reference. It is better to include such
information in an informational RFC. BTW, the architecture draft was
discussed and commented upon last december and early this year.

I'll send out a new version on 2nd i.e. after IBA 1.1 announcement. Is
it possible to revive the draft so that I can submit a -02 version
after the 28th cutoff?

Vivek

-- 
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
[email-masked] 
[email-masked] 
503 578 3422 (o)
-- 
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
[email-masked] 
[email-masked] 
503 578 3422 (o)
_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:22:59 -0700 (PDT)

Vivek