This is really an IBTA issue to resolve and to insure that backward compatibility with existing applications is maintained. Hence, this exercise of who is broken or not is inherently flawed in that one cannot comprehend all implementations that may exist. Therefore, the spec should use either a new version number or a reserved bit to indicate that there is a defined format to the private data portion or not. This is no different than what is done in other technologies such as PCIe. Those applications that require the existing semantics will be confined to the existing associated infrastructure. Those that want the new IP semantics set the bit / version and operate within the restricted private data space available. It is that simple.
Mike
At 07:31 AM 10/20/2005, Jimmy Hill wrote:
A Linux uDAPL-based system infrastructure application I am working on at IBM currently depends on 64-bytes of Private Data for Connect and Accept as well.
-- jimmy
Oracle currently depends on 64 bytes of private data for connect and accept.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kanevsky, Arkady
To: Davis, Arlin R ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Grant Grundler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: [dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] Re: iWARP emulationprotocol
Arlin,
just to clarify, Intel MPI will not have problems with useing less than 64 bytes
of private data.
If a solution will provide you with 48 bytes of private data will it be sufficient?
Arkady
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Appliance phone: 781-768-5395
375 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300
-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Arlin R [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Grant Grundler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] Re: iWARP emulationprotocol
Arkady,
Intel MPI (real consumer of uDAPL) has no problem with this change.
-arlin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:40 AM
To: Grant Grundler; Caitlin Bestler
Cc: Roland Dreier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: [dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] Re: iWARP emulation protocol
Grant,
The developers of the application(s) in questions are aware of the
discussion.
I will leave it to them to respond.
I bring the discussion point at the weekly DAT Collaborative meeting
which we have every Wednesday.
I appologize that the DAT Collaborative charter does not allow
to submit contribution without joining DAT Collaborative.
But this is no different from Linux not accepting any contrubutions
without proper license.
Byt be rest assure that as a Chair I bring the concerns
and suggestions stated in email discussion at the DAT meetings.
Arkady
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Appliance phone: 781-768-5395
375 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Grundler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:02 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler
> Cc: Grant Grundler; Roland Dreier; Kanevsky, Arkady;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: iWARP emulation protocol
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:40:54PM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> > > Roland (and the rest of us) would like to see someone name a
> > > real consumer of the proposed interface. ie who depends on
> > > this change?
> > > Then the dependency for that use/user can be discussed and
> > > appropriate tradeoffs made. Make sense?
> >
> > Unfortunately not every application that is under
> development, or even
> > deployed, can be discussed in a google-searchable public
> forum. That
> > especially applies to user-mode development.
>
> Well, this is open source. While I don't want to preclude
> closed source developement, it's usually necessary to have an
> open source consumer that any open source developer can test with.
>
> > So I could have actually tested such applications and still not be
> > free to cite them here.
>
> Understood. I'm not asking *you* to cite one unless you
> happen to own one of the consumers.
>
> > With any luck some of them
> > are following the discussion and will jump in on their own.
> > Unfortunately, since they are developing to uDAPL they are
> unlikely to
> > be following this discussion.
>
> It doesn't help that the DAT yahoo-groups.com mailing list is
> rejecting my replies. It would be helpful if someone
> following this forum could share Roland's question with DAT
> mailing list if it didn't make it there already and possibly
> explain why naming a consumer is necessary.
>
> hth,
> grant
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
" on the web.
- Visit your group " dat-discussions
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
