[ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over Ethernet-- some procedural questions

[Woodruff, Robert J]

Verbs is a software implementation of the IBTA and iWarp verbs for Linux,
although there may be some features that are a superset of the IBTA and iWarp
specifications, and/or were implemented first in OFA and then submitted to IBTA
for standardization.

SRP is an ANSI T10 standard.
IPoIB is an IETF standard.
There is no standard for RDS that I know of, but I think it
was OFA that "asked" Oracle to submit it. 

The real question is does OFA want to limit itself to accepting 
only code that is part of some standard ? As for kernel.org,
they typically do not follow such a rule, they do what they
think is right for Linux, sometimes the code is associated
with a standard, sometimes it is not.  I think that the ofa-general
list pretty much has been following the kernel.org model.

I think that in any case, OFA needs to have a consistent policy,
and if we allow something that is not a standard for one member,
it should be allowed for all members. 

my 2 cents.

woody


-----Original Message-----
From: general-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:24 AM
To: Ryan, Jim
Cc: OpenFabrics EWG; OpenFabrics General
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over Ethernet-- some procedural questions

Understood -- and I'm not debating these questions in light of RDMAoE/ 
IBoE/whateveroE.

I'm asking how tightly these questions have been applied to all the  
other stacks in OFED.  For example, RDS, SRP, and verbs itself.  Are  
any of these published/standardized APIs other than the fact that  
they're in OFED?

What does it mean to have a standard body "associated" with a  
proposal?  Does "associated" mean that the proposal/API is a published  
standard in that standards body?  Or some weaker definition?




On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Ryan, Jim wrote:

> Jeff, thanks, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible and offer  
> more offline if anyone wants it:
> - The bylaws state the requirement for a standards body to be  
> associated with a proposal. It contains some examples, including the  
> IETF and the IBTA (and others)
>
> - I think it's fair to say there's some ambiguity around what a  
> "proposal" would consist of. That's part of the discussion I've  
> tried to get started in the past, unsuccessfully
>
> - The bylaws also say the Board can ID other such bodies as the need  
> is perceived
>
> - My best understanding is the IBTA is developing a spec that  
> addresses this area. Work has started, but I don't have a timeline  
> for delivery.
>
> An obvious concern to me is having code submitted prior to a spec  
> being agreed
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:25 AM
> To: OpenFabrics EWG; OpenFabrics General
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over  
> Ethernet -- some procedural questions
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Ryan, Jim wrote:
>
> > - There was no standards body associated with the proposal.
> >
>
>
> Clarification question on this -- what exactly does this statement
> mean?  I ask because if you take that statement to the extreme, many
> things in OFED may not qualify.
>
> For example, the uDAPL software API is standardized, so I assume it's
> fine.  The iWARP and IB hardware layers are standardized, but are
> there standardized software APIs?  Specifically: the verbs software
> stack is not standardized by any standards body, is it?  (what is the
> exact definition of "standards body", anyway -- does consensus of OFED
> members count?)
>
> These may be naive questions (I don't follow these APIs at all), but
> is the RDS API standardized?  Is SRP?  Are the various tools that are
> shipped in OFED standardized?
>
> I'm sure we don't want to take all these things out of OFED, but some
> clarification of the rules might be useful.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
>


-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general