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

[Fab Tillier]

> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:40 PM
> 
> Fab Tillier wrote:
> > I'd like to see us define the protocol independent of the service ID.
> > We can then establish a service ID range to be used with this protocol
> > for NFS/RDMA, or for more generic TCP mappings, but these are two
> > different issues to me.
> 
> But the protocol (if you define a private data format as a protocol) has no
> meaning to the CM.  It only has meaning to the application that's listening on
> the service ID.

The same can be said of the starting local QPN, responder resource, initiator
depth, starting PSN, MTU, and so forth.  The CM doesn't care about these - the
application does, as these settings affect how it configures its QP and what
features of its protocol it can use.

>  Using a reserved bit in the REQ mixes the CM's protocol
> (which is to process REQs, REPs, etc.) with that of the application.

There are a number of fields that are not used by the CM state machine that are
included in these MADs already.  These fields are defined in the CM protocol not
because they impact MAD processing in the CM, but because they represent minimum
information needed to configure a QP and client.

- Fab