[openib-general] Re: [swg] Re: private data...

[Sean Hefty]

Michael Krause wrote:
> This is really an IBTA issue to resolve and to insure that backward 
> compatibility with existing applications is maintained.  Hence, this 
> exercise of who is broken or not is inherently flawed in that one cannot 
> comprehend all implementations that may exist. Therefore, the spec 
> should use either a new version number or a reserved bit to indicate 
> that there is a defined format to the private data portion or not.   
> This is no different than what is done in other technologies such as 
> PCIe.  Those applications that require the existing semantics will be 
> confined to the existing associated infrastructure.  Those that want the 
> new IP semantics set the bit / version and operate within the restricted 
> private data space available.  It is that simple.

If we use an IBTA assigned service ID, I think that this can be defined without 
using a reserved bit or changing a version number.  The two possible 
implementations that I see are using a single service ID, or mapping port 
numbers to a range of assigned service IDs.

- Sean