[dat-discussions] [openib-general] [RFC] DAT2.0immediatedataproposal

[Caitlin Bestler]

openib-general-bounces at openib.org 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.