[openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - proposal for socket based connection model

[Caitlin Bestler]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:10 AM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> Cc: Caitlin Bestler; openib-general at openib.org; swg at infinibandta.org
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - 
> proposal for socket based connection model
> 
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> > It is APIs not ULPs that are concern.
> 
> Yes - and an application that wants to use IP addressing 
> instead of IB addressing should use a different API than that 
> of the IB CM.  Trying to define the IB CM to use anybody's 
> favorite transport/network address is the wrong solution to 
> the problem.  That is a service level issue best left to the 
> service that's trying to perform the mapping.
> 

What you are proposing is an API that purports to have the
semantics of TCP/IP connection establishment that can be 
implemented under non-IP transports such as InfiniBand.

However, as proposed the mapping of this API to InfiniBand
does *not* implement the semantics of TCP/IP connection
establishment in that the remote address presented to
the listener has been subject to *no* authentication.

That is a change in the API that has an impact on the
application. It is creating a requiremet for the application
to validate the remote identity greater than it would face
for TCP/IP connection establishment.