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

[Tom Tucker]

I agree.

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 15:01 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
> >But that require changes to CM APIs vs a module on top of it
> >to parse and populate private data field.
> 
> I'm wasn't advocating this change.  What I think needs to be defined here is a
> *service* that provides TCP/IP connection semantics, similar to the definition
> of SDP.  Applications can make use of this service or not, but the goal is that
> all services that use TCP/IP addressing to establish a connection would do so.
> OpenIB would provide an implementation of this service.
> 
> The service is defined by one or more service IDs, plus a private data format.
> 
> Moving beyond defining this service to changing the CM REQ, or separating the
> definition of the service into a private data protocol and application defined
> service IDs seem like a step in the wrong direction.
> 
> - Sean
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general