Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] RE: ICSC Sockets API Extensions Charter Approved

From: "Teisberg, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:23:45 -0600

> 
> There is ongoing work in creating a DDP layer for SCTP as 
> indicated in the
> pending announcement of a draft within the tsvwg.  The only 
> IP protocol
> suitable for RDMA would be SCTP unless there is interest in 
> something like
> UDP or RDP which would incur acceptance issues.

I'm not going to get into this except to note that not everyone agrees
SCTP is the only suitable protocol.

> 
> A draft such as this can become an informational RFC.  None 
> the less, it
> indicates ongoing efforts.  Unless you wish to exclude SCTP, 
> there should be
> interest in this effort.

I don't wish to exclude SCTP.  On the contrary, I wish to include as
many alternatives as possible.

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

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:18:43 -0800

Robert,

> > indicated in the pending announcement of a draft within the
> > tsvwg.  The only IP protocol suitable for RDMA would be
> > SCTP unless there is interest in something like UDP or RDP
> > which would incur acceptance issues.
>

There are efforts related to the introduction of an added layer beneath or
within TCP to handle framing in a fashion analogous to a scheme proposed for
iSCSI and as with Julian Satran and Stephen Bailey's ongoing efforts toward
such introduction.  Framing would be a requirement for RDMA if direct
placement were desired.  You should also note such TCP framing schemes are
drafts and are not classified as part of the IP protocol suite.  I believe
the ICSC announcement made reference to this as a TCP/IP stack bypass.

> > A draft such as this can become an informational RFC.  None the
> > less, it indicates ongoing efforts.  Unless you wish to exclude SCTP,
> > there should be interest in this effort.
>

It is good SCTP is being considered.  As SCTP offers more features, there
may be additional options found when working with SCTP not seen on
alternatives and you will note SCTP does have an impact on the socket API.
A view by RDMA in seeing SCTP as a subset of possible transports is not a
problem.  SCTP offers capabilities beyond alternatives and should receive
additional consideration for applications beyond RDMA as well.  Specialized
adapters for each application seems a poor approach.

Doug