On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:54:55AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > Trying to characterize "RDMA" as consisting *solely* of > messages that identify target buffers in the message is > off target.
You're using circular arguments: "Because one particular subset of the RDMA community defines RDMA in fashion X, it is off target to define RDMA in any other fashion." One-sided vs. two-sided is important. You've completely left that out. Well, no matter: we don't need to argue about the defintion of RDMA to solve the question of what the transport-neutral prefix should be. I have no doubt that we would never agree about the defintion. > Now if you can come up with a short acronym that conveys > that then I am fine with using it. Try "now if *someone* can come up with". How did you like verb_ ? -- greg _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
