Subject: [Tsvwg] MPA and stovepipe protocol stack

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:30:42 -0400

I really wanted to stay out of this, but an important clarification
is in order:

> In which case this is a stovepipe protocol, not a modification of TCP.
> <prc> If tying the drafts together and calling it a "stovepipe protocol"
> (whatever that means) is what it takes to satisfy the majority of the
> group, we can surely do that... <prc>

The rddp WG charter forbids this.  If the rddp WG is to take
the DDP and RDMAP drafts forward, any requirement for or dependence on
the presence of MPA will have to be removed.  In turn, I think that means
that Joe is right that MPA needs to stand on its own.

I also think that arguing that MPA is not a change to TCP is a waste of
time, as an important aspect of MPA is to change the behavior of a TCP
transmitter (segmentation in particular) in order to obtain benefits at
a correspondingly modified TCP receiver.

Thanks,
--David
---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:46:56 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
...
> a correspondingly modified TCP receiver.

A very important question is whether MPA is a protocol of its own, or 
really a modification of TCP. IMO, when running in MPA mode, it is 
sufficiently different to warrant being called (and therefore using) a 
different protocol number.

All of the backward compatibility of MPA with TCP arises from 
essentially keeping two stacks - MPA and TCP - and switching between 
them. Contrast this with all recent modifications of TCP.

Joe