It is APIs not ULPs that are concern. Each ULP can define its own protocol. But APIs can not. But defining a protocol for each ULP is also bad. This proposal defines it for all ULPs. If ULP uses API, it does the parsing. If ULP uses verbs it can do the parsing and encoding itself. But in the later case it will have to have a different ULP CM for each transport. Bad idea. 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: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:52 PM > To: Kanevsky, Arkady > Cc: Caitlin Bestler; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - > proposal for socket based connection model > > > Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: > > Sean, > > The reason IBTA is interested to address IP address issue > > is because of multiple UPLs and APIs want to support > > socket based connection model. Sure each one of them > > can define its own protocol (for private data). > > But this will not ensure interoperability. > > There's no interoperability between different ULPs anyway. > Each does define its > own protocol. Trying to standardize part of the CM REQ > private data doesn't > help in this regard. > > - Sean > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
