[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I was under the assumption that the DAT community defined the > APIs and semantics through an open process. Given that the > IB write immediate data facility does not break the > implementation or semantics of the currently defined RDMA > write facility, I see no reason the DAPL spec couldn't be > updated, through consensus, with the realities of existing > transport services. Nevertheless, I presume you'll have no > objection to implementing this useful service as a DAPL > extension since the semantic rules for extensions haven't > been define yet. > > Roy
That is correct, because as an extension the user would not expect normal semantics to still be guaranteed. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
