Barry Reinhold(home | 2 May 2005 23:16
Picon

M bit

Is there any error case in which the returned terminate header MUST have the M bit set? That is, is there any error case in which the DDP segment has to be there?

 

Barry Reinhold

(603) 868 8411

bbr <at> lampreynetworks.com

 

_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
rddp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
Bob Noseworthy | 3 May 2005 18:10

UNH-IOL iWARP Plugfest announcement - call for participation

Greetings all,

I would like to bring to the attention of the RDDP/iWARP 
community the discussion of the UNH-IOL iWARP Consortium's 
initial plugfest the week of June 20, 2005. 

The test plan to be addressed at this plugfest is posted at 
http://www.iol.unh.edu/consortiums/iwarp/grouptest/index.html 
and while it will be undergoing further clarification and 
addition, the spirit of the intended coverage is currently 
identified in the v0.1 document.  This event is pursue/demonstrate 
conformance to the specification.  This testing will yield 
confidential vendor-specific results intended to improve 
end user's initial iWARP experiences by correcting any 
conformance issues earlier in the development cycle. 

All interested parties, willing and able to participate in the event
are strongly encouraged to do so, regardless of membership
in the UNH-IOL iWARP Consortium.  Interested non-members should
contact me for details (mailto:ren <at> iol.unh.edu).

The majority of the conformance test specification and  
scripts are ready, more information is available at 
http://www.lampreynetworks.com/Documents/iWARP%20Test%20Spec.pdf
The RDDP community is strongly encouraged to review this specification and 
provide comments.  
Detailed early testing can generate better interoperable solutions.

I would ask for your review and contributions to the proposed test 
plan, bearing in mind that we wish to take reasonable steps forward 
to address the needs of the community. Through discussions with 
Barry Reinhold (Lamprey Networks), Dr Bob Russell (UNH-IOL) and the 
iWARP Consortium's industry steering committee the proposed 
conformance and interoperability first steps seem reasonable for an 
initial plugfest with reasonable participation from the industry.

If you are able to participate please contact me directly to discuss.  
If you currently are not able to participate but are interested in future 
efforts, please be sure to stay in contact with our efforts here at UNH 
http://www.iol.unh.edu/consortiums/iwarp/ 

Please send comments to Dr Bob Russell and myself at
 mailto:ren <at> iol.unh.edu;rdr <at> iol.unh.edu

 Bob Noseworthy
 +1-603-862-4342 {Office}	| IOL Technical Sherpa (Director) 
 +1-603-862-0205 {10GEC Lab}	| iWARP Consortium Manager
					| 10 Gigabit Ethernet Consortium
Manager
 UNH InterOperability Laboratory - Research Computing Center    

PS: Thank you to Mr. David Black for permitting this notification
to the RDDP community.
The IESG | 5 May 2005 23:22
Picon
Favicon

Document Action: 'The Architecture of Direct Data Placement (DDP)And Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)On Internet Protocols' to Informational RFC

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'The Architecture of Direct Data Placement (DDP)And Remote Direct Memory 
   Access (RDMA)On Internet Protocols '
   <draft-ietf-rddp-arch-07.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Remote Direct Data Placement Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jon Peterson and Allison Mankin.

Technical Summary

This document is the main architecture document of the RDDP WG. It provides 
pretty code-intensive description of how the protocol is expected to operate

(it uses formal structs to characterize operations). It also contains the 
fundamental layering model of RDDP.

Working Group Summary

The RDDP WG supported the advancement of this document.

Protocol Quality

This document was reviewed for the IESG by Jon Peterson.
Black_David | 12 May 2005 20:15

MPA and iSER: Standards Track

I've corresponded with the Transport Area Director for
the RDDP WG (Jon Peterson), and the resulting agreement
is that the RFC standards track is appropriate for MPA
and hence also iSER, so the initial status that will be
requested for both will be Proposed Standard RFC.
Many thanks for everyone's patience with the necessity
of deferring this decision until after MPA's WG Last Call.

As for status/schedule of the RDDP drafts - they've all
passed WG Last Call, and so authors should be making sure
that the latest versions respond to all Last Call comments
and satisfy everything in the ID Checklist:

http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html

Courtesy of my day job's bad habit of interfering with
IETF work, I expect to be getting to double-checking this
and submitting the RDDP drafts to our AD (Jon) and the
IESG towards the end of this month.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

Jim Pinkerton | 13 May 2005 08:37
Picon
Favicon

RE: [Ips] MPA and iSER: Standards Track


Yow!!!!

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ips-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ips-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Black_David <at> emc.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:15 AM
> To: rddp <at> ietf.org; ips <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Ips] MPA and iSER: Standards Track
> 
> I've corresponded with the Transport Area Director for the 
> RDDP WG (Jon Peterson), and the resulting agreement is that 
> the RFC standards track is appropriate for MPA and hence also 
> iSER, so the initial status that will be requested for both 
> will be Proposed Standard RFC.
> Many thanks for everyone's patience with the necessity of 
> deferring this decision until after MPA's WG Last Call.
> 
> As for status/schedule of the RDDP drafts - they've all 
> passed WG Last Call, and so authors should be making sure 
> that the latest versions respond to all Last Call comments 
> and satisfy everything in the ID Checklist:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
> 
> Courtesy of my day job's bad habit of interfering with IETF 
> work, I expect to be getting to double-checking this and 
> submitting the RDDP drafts to our AD (Jon) and the IESG 
> towards the end of this month.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> Ips <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 

Gmane