Arkady,
I know we originally set out to compress everything down to
the minimum to preserve as much ULP specific private data as
possible. But it seems to me in the current proposal we have
reserved space now which could be used to re-expand the
version to major 4-bits and minor-4 bits without harming
anything else.
Can we entertain that as an option?
My rationale is to err on the side of perhaps a little
too much version room than too little. This will put it
in line with the precedent of SDP.
-ted
Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
pdf version of the proposal.
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
275 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Kanevsky, Arkady
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:59 AM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Subject:* [openib-general] socket based connectionmodel for IB
proposal -round 4
This version incorporate the feedback on 3 reflectors and
yesterday's SWG meeting.
Major changes from previous version are:
no REQ bit to identify private data formaing - SID range used instead
port mapping uses IBTA space and IETF protocol # is encoded in SID
protocol version is 4 bits.
Arkady
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
275 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195
Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300
--
Ted H. Kim
Sun Microsystems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
222 North Sepulveda Blvd., 10th Floor (310) 341-1116
El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 341-1120 FAX
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
