On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:34:16AM -0700, Fab Tillier wrote: > > From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:25 AM > > > > So being predictably unreliable for one implementation > > stage is certainly something you can get away with. > > Even when you add support it might be quite acceptable > > to send the private data *only* on the first try, or to > > require the IT-API layer to do the retries. > > I'm still for hiding the RTU private data. I think it's useless because > it's unreliable - anything exchanged via private data in the RTU must also > be exchanged by other means in case the connection is established before the > RTU is received. Any ULPs that depend on the RTU private data are setting > themselves up for potential failures.
I agree for exactly the reason you give, I can't think of a legitimate use for RTU private data. I'd get rid of it entirely, from the code as well as the spec, which is why I think it would be a waste of someones time to add the correct support for it. -Libor _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
