On 10/24/07, Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael Krause wrote: > > The proper action is to propose a new MPA specification to the IETF - it > > isn't an OFA decision to make. MPA within the IETF was a tough fight to > > get into existence. This particular issue was raised and the outcome > > from that debate is what is in the 1.0 specification (it is a standard > > if I recall not a draft). > > As far as I can see on the IETF site, the MPA, DDP, and RDMAP docs are > all expired Internet Drafts. Can you point me to the RFCs? > > > Fine to argue here but action and > > specification work must be brought up in the IETF RDDP workgroup and > > likely to be vetted as well by the TSVWG and Transport AD (both weighed > > in quite a bit during MPA's creation). > > > > If the IETF approves a new draft, then OFA can develop the associated > > software. But there may be multiple software stacks to deal with legacy > > hardware / drivers so the problem isn't just fixed by providing a new > > MPA specification. People are using iWARP today that is compliant with > > today's MPA specification. > > > > Yup. > > _______________________________________________ > Interop-wg mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
