From Jeff.Kopko at Emulex.Com Fri May 10 12:26:11 2013 From: Jeff.Kopko at Emulex.Com (Kopko, Jeff) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 19:26:11 +0000 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] FW: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports In-Reply-To: <5182A6CD.5000405@iol.unh.edu> References: <5182A6CD.5000405@iol.unh.edu> Message-ID: <9F4B1D52D352A4479E711FDCD27E651F2B914687@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com> Hello, Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. Please let Emulex know if you are in agreement or if you require and further information from us. Thank you, - Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Nate Rubin [mailto:nrubin at iol.unh.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:48 PM To: Kopko, Jeff Cc: OFA Lab Mailing List Subject: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports Jeff, Attached you will find the RoCE reports for this February's Logo Event. If you would like can file an arbitration request by emailing "iwg-arbitration-committee at openfabrics.org" within 14 days of receiving this email. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Nate Rubin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.0.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 441222 bytes Desc: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.0.pdf URL: From rsdance at soft-forge.com Fri May 10 13:42:53 2013 From: rsdance at soft-forge.com (Rupert Dance) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] FW: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports In-Reply-To: <9F4B1D52D352A4479E711FDCD27E651F2B914687@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com> References: <5182A6CD.5000405@iol.unh.edu> <9F4B1D52D352A4479E711FDCD27E651F2B914687@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com> Message-ID: <01a701ce4dbe$f2297010$d67c5030$@soft-forge.com> Hello Jeff, Thank you for submitting this claim. Nate has already sent me the changes you requested in the Open MPI command and I will study that along with the RoCE Annex. I will then call together the arbitration committee and review this issue. As per the Logo Policy, we have a total of 4 weeks to complete reviews of any claims but I expect to have this finalized long before that. Thank you, Rupert Dance OFA Director of Training and Quality Assurance Software Forge 2 Greenleaf Woods Drive #301 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Phone: 603-319-8486 www.soft-forge.com -----Original Message----- From: iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Kopko, Jeff Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:26 PM To: iwg-arbitration-committee at openfabrics.org Cc: Nate Rubin (nrubin at iol.unh.edu) Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] FW: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports Hello, Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. Please let Emulex know if you are in agreement or if you require and further information from us. Thank you, - Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Nate Rubin [mailto:nrubin at iol.unh.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:48 PM To: Kopko, Jeff Cc: OFA Lab Mailing List Subject: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports Jeff, Attached you will find the RoCE reports for this February's Logo Event. If you would like can file an arbitration request by emailing "iwg-arbitration-committee at openfabrics.org" within 14 days of receiving this email. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Nate Rubin From rsdance at soft-forge.com Fri May 24 08:08:15 2013 From: rsdance at soft-forge.com (Rupert Dance) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue Message-ID: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> Hello all, The arbitration submission period for the February 2013 Logo GA Event officially ends May 24th 2013 at 5:00 PM Eastern but since we are having an Interoperability program meeting today, I wanted to take the opportunity to review the only arbitration claim we have received so far for the February Logo GA Event. You have requested to be included in the Feb 2013 Arbitration committee and so I need to remind you that you are under NDA and none of the information revealed during this process should be shared with anyone outside of the committee members. Here is the list of committee members for this event: . Bob Noseworthy - UNH-IOL . Jim Ryan - Intel . Paul Grun - Cray . Rupert Dance S- Software Forge Start of Arbitration Claim: Jeff Kopko has submitted an arbitration request on the results of the February 2013 Logo Event Report. Here are the details of the arbitration request: _____ Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. _____ I have attached the following documents for us to review in support of this arbitration claim: . Emulex Logo Report: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1 . RoCE Annex - see pages 3 and 9 . Interop Test Plan for May Logo GA Event: OFA-IWG Interoperability Test Plan-v1.48-v4 Here is the call in information for the meeting today: Friday, May 24, 2013, 09:00 AM US Pacific Time 916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 1639619 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Annex_RoCE_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 204246 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 608529 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OFA-IWG Interoperability Test Plan-v1.48-v4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1946113 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ren at iol.unh.edu Fri May 24 12:16:17 2013 From: ren at iol.unh.edu (Bob Noseworthy) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:16:17 -0400 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue In-Reply-To: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> References: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> Message-ID: <519FBC81.8070702@iol.unh.edu> Hi all, Just closing the loop from my perspective. I'm fine with the request. The purpose of the "Pass with Comments" was to draw necessary attention to the deviation from the TEST PLAN, not to highlight an issue with the PRODUCT (there is none). The reason why we typically flag a result such as this as "Pass with Comments" is to make sure the result gets a little more attention than a mere glance - and also to ensure that the deviation from the test plan is noticed (and, if necessary, challenged if anyone believes the deviation was NOT warranted). Jeff certainly makes the case that the change is warranted and clearly wishes to have a 'cleaner' report, which I have no objection to. Unless there's objection, we shall reissue the report as a "Pass" (leaving the comment as is) Have a great weekend all, - Bob Noseworthy Chief Engineer / Technical Sherpa +1-909-891-0090 {unified phone number for office, cell, etc} +1-603-862-0090 {IOL Main number-associate this with any shipments} University of New Hampshire's InterOperability Laboratory (UNH-IOL) On 5/24/2013 11:08 AM, Rupert Dance wrote: > > Hello all, > > The arbitration submission period for the February 2013 Logo GA Event > officially ends May 24^th 2013 at 5:00 PM Eastern but since we are > having an Interoperability program meeting today, I wanted to take the > opportunity to review the only arbitration claim we have received so > far for the February Logo GA Event. You have requested to be included > in the Feb 2013 Arbitration committee and so I need to remind you > that you are under NDA and none of the information revealed during > this process should be shared with anyone outside of the committee > members. Here is the list of committee members for this event: > > ·Bob Noseworthy -- UNH-IOL > > ·Jim Ryan -- Intel > > ·Paul Grun - Cray > > ·Rupert Dance S- Software Forge > > *Start of Arbitration Claim*: > > Jeff Kopko has submitted an arbitration request on the results of the > February 2013 Logo Event Report. Here are the details of the > arbitration request: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. > > Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments > > Desired Results = Pass > > Reasoning: > > The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm > is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. > > Spec Details. > > In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex > specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is > necessary. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I have attached the following documents for us to review in support of > this arbitration claim: > > ·*Emulex Logo Report*: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1 > > ·*RoCE Annex*-- see pages 3 and 9 > > ·*Interop Test Plan for May Logo GA Event*: OFA-IWG Interoperability > Test Plan-v1.48-v4 > > Here is the call in information for the meeting today: > > *Friday, May 24, 2013, 09:00 AM US Pacific Time > *916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 1639619 > > > > _______________________________________________ > iwg-arbitration-committee mailing list > iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iwg-arbitration-committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim.ryan at intel.com Fri May 24 16:50:56 2013 From: jim.ryan at intel.com (Ryan, Jim) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:50:56 +0000 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue In-Reply-To: <519FBC81.8070702@iol.unh.edu> References: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> <519FBC81.8070702@iol.unh.edu> Message-ID: Pardon my uninformed comment, but this suggests there has to be a better way. This process required Emulex to take issue with something that wasn't their fault - IMO an unnecessary and unwarranted imposition on their time Jim From: iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Bob Noseworthy Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:16 PM To: iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue Hi all, Just closing the loop from my perspective. I'm fine with the request. The purpose of the "Pass with Comments" was to draw necessary attention to the deviation from the TEST PLAN, not to highlight an issue with the PRODUCT (there is none). The reason why we typically flag a result such as this as "Pass with Comments" is to make sure the result gets a little more attention than a mere glance - and also to ensure that the deviation from the test plan is noticed (and, if necessary, challenged if anyone believes the deviation was NOT warranted). Jeff certainly makes the case that the change is warranted and clearly wishes to have a 'cleaner' report, which I have no objection to. Unless there's objection, we shall reissue the report as a "Pass" (leaving the comment as is) Have a great weekend all, - Bob Noseworthy Chief Engineer / Technical Sherpa +1-909-891-0090 {unified phone number for office, cell, etc} +1-603-862-0090 {IOL Main number-associate this with any shipments} University of New Hampshire's InterOperability Laboratory (UNH-IOL) On 5/24/2013 11:08 AM, Rupert Dance wrote: Hello all, The arbitration submission period for the February 2013 Logo GA Event officially ends May 24th 2013 at 5:00 PM Eastern but since we are having an Interoperability program meeting today, I wanted to take the opportunity to review the only arbitration claim we have received so far for the February Logo GA Event. You have requested to be included in the Feb 2013 Arbitration committee and so I need to remind you that you are under NDA and none of the information revealed during this process should be shared with anyone outside of the committee members. Here is the list of committee members for this event: * Bob Noseworthy - UNH-IOL * Jim Ryan - Intel * Paul Grun - Cray * Rupert Dance S- Software Forge Start of Arbitration Claim: Jeff Kopko has submitted an arbitration request on the results of the February 2013 Logo Event Report. Here are the details of the arbitration request: ________________________________ Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. ________________________________ I have attached the following documents for us to review in support of this arbitration claim: * Emulex Logo Report: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1 * RoCE Annex - see pages 3 and 9 * Interop Test Plan for May Logo GA Event: OFA-IWG Interoperability Test Plan-v1.48-v4 Here is the call in information for the meeting today: Friday, May 24, 2013, 09:00 AM US Pacific Time 916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 1639619 _______________________________________________ iwg-arbitration-committee mailing list iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iwg-arbitration-committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ren at iol.unh.edu Mon May 27 08:48:49 2013 From: ren at iol.unh.edu (Bob Noseworthy) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue In-Reply-To: References: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> <519FBC81.8070702@iol.unh.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jim. If the result was erroneously logged as a fail, or just a "refer to comments" I would agree. Instead, the result was a Pass, logged as a "Pass with comments", which the report result key shows is still a "Pass", yet Emulex was apparently concerned with anything that is not a pure "Pass". Arbitrating a passing result is unusual (a first I believe) It is our custom to highlight any deviation from the OFA test plan as a "Pass with comments" or "Refer to comments" as appropriate. I'm sure you would agree that deviations from the test plan should not be undocumented. The fact that Emulex was concerned about the perception of a "Pass with comments" vs a "Pass" is actually a positive sign of their desire to market/promote the result - though traditionally if there were such vendor concerns re: wording/etc, they would be caught during informal vendor report reviewing before official report issuance (where we typically ask for things like product identification, etc to be reviewed prior to formal report issuance - which would also be a waste of everyone's time if taken through arbitration) For the next reports we'll try to be clearer with Emulex, IBM, etc that their early review and comment is welcome so non-technical issues like this can be resolved prior to formal report issuance thus requiring arbitration. BR Bob "Ryan, Jim" wrote: >Pardon my uninformed comment, but this suggests there has to be a >better way. This process required Emulex to take issue with something >that wasn't their fault - IMO an unnecessary and unwarranted imposition >on their time > >Jim > >From: iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org >[mailto:iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On >Behalf Of Bob Noseworthy >Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:16 PM >To: iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org >Subject: Re: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue > >Hi all, >Just closing the loop from my perspective. I'm fine with the request. >The purpose of the "Pass with Comments" was to draw necessary attention >to the deviation from the TEST PLAN, not to highlight an issue with >the PRODUCT (there is none). The reason why we typically flag a >result such as this as "Pass with Comments" is to make sure the result >gets a little more attention than a mere glance - and also to ensure >that the deviation from the test plan is noticed (and, if necessary, >challenged if anyone believes the deviation was NOT warranted). >Jeff certainly makes the case that the change is warranted and clearly >wishes to have a 'cleaner' report, which I have no objection to. > >Unless there's objection, we shall reissue the report as a "Pass" >(leaving the comment as is) > >Have a great weekend all, > >- Bob Noseworthy > Chief Engineer / Technical Sherpa > +1-909-891-0090 {unified phone number for office, cell, etc} > +1-603-862-0090 {IOL Main number-associate this with any shipments} > University of New Hampshire's InterOperability Laboratory (UNH-IOL) >On 5/24/2013 11:08 AM, Rupert Dance wrote: >Hello all, > >The arbitration submission period for the February 2013 Logo GA Event >officially ends May 24th 2013 at 5:00 PM Eastern but since we are >having an Interoperability program meeting today, I wanted to take the >opportunity to review the only arbitration claim we have received so >far for the February Logo GA Event. You have requested to be included >in the Feb 2013 Arbitration committee and so I need to remind you that >you are under NDA and none of the information revealed during this >process should be shared with anyone outside of the committee members. >Here is the list of committee members for this event: > > >* Bob Noseworthy - UNH-IOL > >* Jim Ryan - Intel > >* Paul Grun - Cray > >* Rupert Dance S- Software Forge > >Start of Arbitration Claim: > >Jeff Kopko has submitted an arbitration request on the results of the >February 2013 Logo Event Report. Here are the details of the >arbitration request: > >________________________________ > >Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. > > > >Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments > > > >Desired Results = Pass > > > >Reasoning: > > > >The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm >is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. > > > >Spec Details. > >In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex >specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is >necessary. > >________________________________ > >I have attached the following documents for us to review in support of >this arbitration claim: > > >* Emulex Logo Report: >OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1 > >* RoCE Annex - see pages 3 and 9 > >* Interop Test Plan for May Logo GA Event: OFA-IWG >Interoperability Test Plan-v1.48-v4 > >Here is the call in information for the meeting today: > >Friday, May 24, 2013, 09:00 AM US Pacific Time >916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 1639619 > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >iwg-arbitration-committee mailing list > >iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org > >http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iwg-arbitration-committee -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim.ryan at intel.com Mon May 27 14:24:23 2013 From: jim.ryan at intel.com (Ryan, Jim) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:24:23 +0000 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue In-Reply-To: References: <009801ce5890$844348a0$8cc9d9e0$@soft-forge.com> <519FBC81.8070702@iol.unh.edu> Message-ID: Bob, thanks, this is all extremely helpful and informative. I hope you weren’t bothered, much less insulted by my earlier comment. Nothing along the lines of that was intended Regards, Jim From: Bob Noseworthy [mailto:ren at iol.unh.edu] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:49 AM To: Ryan, Jim; iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue Hi Jim. If the result was erroneously logged as a fail, or just a "refer to comments" I would agree. Instead, the result was a Pass, logged as a "Pass with comments", which the report result key shows is still a "Pass", yet Emulex was apparently concerned with anything that is not a pure "Pass". Arbitrating a passing result is unusual (a first I believe) It is our custom to highlight any deviation from the OFA test plan as a "Pass with comments" or "Refer to comments" as appropriate. I'm sure you would agree that deviations from the test plan should not be undocumented. The fact that Emulex was concerned about the perception of a "Pass with comments" vs a "Pass" is actually a positive sign of their desire to market/promote the result - though traditionally if there were such vendor concerns re: wording/etc, they would be caught during informal vendor report reviewing before official report issuance (where we typically ask for things like product identification, etc to be reviewed prior to formal report issuance - which would also be a waste of everyone's time if taken through arbitration) For the next reports we'll try to be clearer with Emulex, IBM, etc that their early review and comment is welcome so non-technical issues like this can be resolved prior to formal report issuance thus requiring arbitration. BR Bob "Ryan, Jim" > wrote: Pardon my uninformed comment, but this suggests there has to be a better way. This process required Emulex to take issue with something that wasn’t their fault – IMO an unnecessary and unwarranted imposition on their time Jim From: iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Bob Noseworthy Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:16 PM To: iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] Emulex Arbitration Issue Hi all, Just closing the loop from my perspective. I'm fine with the request. The purpose of the "Pass with Comments" was to draw necessary attention to the deviation from the TEST PLAN, not to highlight an issue with the PRODUCT (there is none). The reason why we typically flag a result such as this as "Pass with Comments" is to make sure the result gets a little more attention than a mere glance - and also to ensure that the deviation from the test plan is noticed (and, if necessary, challenged if anyone believes the deviation was NOT warranted). Jeff certainly makes the case that the change is warranted and clearly wishes to have a 'cleaner' report, which I have no objection to. Unless there's objection, we shall reissue the report as a "Pass" (leaving the comment as is) Have a great weekend all, - Bob Noseworthy Chief Engineer / Technical Sherpa +1-909-891-0090 {unified phone number for office, cell, etc} +1-603-862-0090 {IOL Main number-associate this with any shipments} University of New Hampshire's InterOperability Laboratory (UNH-IOL) On 5/24/2013 11:08 AM, Rupert Dance wrote: Hello all, The arbitration submission period for the February 2013 Logo GA Event officially ends May 24th 2013 at 5:00 PM Eastern but since we are having an Interoperability program meeting today, I wanted to take the opportunity to review the only arbitration claim we have received so far for the February Logo GA Event. You have requested to be included in the Feb 2013 Arbitration committee and so I need to remind you that you are under NDA and none of the information revealed during this process should be shared with anyone outside of the committee members. Here is the list of committee members for this event: · Bob Noseworthy – UNH-IOL · Jim Ryan – Intel · Paul Grun - Cray · Rupert Dance S- Software Forge Start of Arbitration Claim: Jeff Kopko has submitted an arbitration request on the results of the February 2013 Logo Event Report. Here are the details of the arbitration request: ________________________________ Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. ________________________________ I have attached the following documents for us to review in support of this arbitration claim: · Emulex Logo Report: OFILG_2013-Feb_Logo-Report_Emulex_Beta_v1.1 · RoCE Annex – see pages 3 and 9 · Interop Test Plan for May Logo GA Event: OFA-IWG Interoperability Test Plan-v1.48-v4 Here is the call in information for the meeting today: Friday, May 24, 2013, 09:00 AM US Pacific Time 916-356-2663, Bridge: 4, Passcode: 1639619 _______________________________________________ iwg-arbitration-committee mailing list iwg-arbitration-committee at lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iwg-arbitration-committee -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rsdance at soft-forge.com Tue May 28 10:26:26 2013 From: rsdance at soft-forge.com (Rupert Dance) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:26:26 -0400 Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] FW: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports In-Reply-To: <9F4B1D52D352A4479E711FDCD27E651F2B914687@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com> References: <5182A6CD.5000405@iol.unh.edu> <9F4B1D52D352A4479E711FDCD27E651F2B914687@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com> Message-ID: <008c01ce5bc8$7ba65c10$72f31430$@soft-forge.com> Hello Jeff, The Arbitration Committee meet last week and reviewed your request. Arbitration requests are usually submitted when a product fails during the Logo Event. In your case the device passed but UNH-IOL added comments to avoid a failure if someone were to try and replicate the results using the version of the test plan in effect at the time. So this was not a failure on the part of your product and some felt Pass with Comments was appropriate. We nonetheless understood your concern that there is possible inference that your device was not given an unqualified pass. So we all agreed to support your request to change the result to a Pass but we will keep the comment in place to avoid any chance of confusion for the end user as noted above. UNH-IOL will be sending an updated report to you. Thank you for your participation in the OFILG. Rupert Dance OFA Director of Training and Quality Assurance Software Forge 2 Greenleaf Woods Drive #301 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Phone: 603-319-8486 www.soft-forge.com -----Original Message----- From: iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:iwg-arbitration-committee-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Kopko, Jeff Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:26 PM To: iwg-arbitration-committee at openfabrics.org Cc: Nate Rubin (nrubin at iol.unh.edu) Subject: [Iwg-arbitration-committee] FW: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports Hello, Emulex would like have our results for MPI reviewed. Current Reported Results for test 13.7 MPI = Pass with Comments Desired Results = Pass Reasoning: The issue is that the Global Routing Header will not be set if rdmacm is not specified for openmpi. GRH is required for RoCE. Spec Details. In current OFED stack implementation, to comply to RDMA RoCE Annex specification, To satisfy requirement CA16-4. And CA16-22, rdmacm is necessary. Please let Emulex know if you are in agreement or if you require and further information from us. Thank you, - Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Nate Rubin [mailto:nrubin at iol.unh.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:48 PM To: Kopko, Jeff Cc: OFA Lab Mailing List Subject: UNH-IOL OFA Logo Reports Jeff, Attached you will find the RoCE reports for this February's Logo Event. If you would like can file an arbitration request by emailing "iwg-arbitration-committee at openfabrics.org" within 14 days of receiving this email. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Nate Rubin Attachment saved to