[ofa-general] [RFP] support for iWARP requirement - activeconnect side MUST send first FPDU

[Talpey, Thomas]

At 04:09 PM 10/24/2007, Tom Tucker wrote:
>Michael Krause wrote:
>> The proper action is to propose a new MPA specification to the IETF - 
>> it isn't an OFA decision to make.  MPA within the IETF was a tough 
>> fight to get into existence.  This particular issue was raised and the 
>> outcome from that debate is what is in the 1.0 specification (it is a 
>> standard if I recall not a draft).
>It looks to me to be an ID, not an RFC.

The RDDP specifications are in the RFC Editor's queue, therefore they
are in-between Internet-Draft and Proposed-Standard status. You can
find them on the IETF tracking pages:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/?search_job_owner=&search_group_acronym=RDDP&search_status_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=&search_filename=&search_rfcnumber=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH>

"RFC" is just a nickname. The specific document status, Proposed Standard
in this case, is the key. RFCs are in fact living documents, but once published
their status changes. The idea of "Proposed" is that people implement it, and
feed back what works and what doesn't about the protocol. After vetting the
protocol by this process, the next step is to modify and/or republish it as a
so-called "Draft" standard. In fact, to get to that level we need two or more
interoperable implementations. This connection model problem certainly is an
interoperability issue.

This discussion should be held on the IETF RDDP list. Take this experience back
to the protocol and fix it, or deal with it in upper layers and leave the draft as-is.

As mentioned, the MPA protocol was far and away the most contentious point
of the entire iWARP RDDP stack. It represents many, many compromises, and
it's not surprising in hindsight that this issue is surfacing. It means the process
is working, remember.

Tom.

P.S. Internet Standards process: <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/bcp/bcp9.txt>