Sean wrote, >My point was that NetworkDirect is a published API whose definition is owned >entirely by Microsoft. All implementations MUST adhere to the published ND API >specification, or they are not compliant. It's not about legality, who >maintains a specific ND implementation, or whether a specific change is >considered an improvement over what's there.
>We are free to change IBAL, WinVerbs, or other APIs because we own them. The >only cost of doing so is breaking existing applications. But for ND, our >choice >is to be compliant or not. >The way I've gone about requesting changes to ND is to send comments to MS >using >the links at the bottom of the ND documentation. I expect that these messages >get routed directly to Fab, who rolls his eyes before hitting the delete key. >:) Good point. Isn't there a WHQL for ND providers ? If so and we change the API without Microsoft's blessing, then the ND provider may not be WHQL'd. I think that Sean is correct that it would be best to suggest the change to Microsoft before changing it in our tree... my 2 cents. woody _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
