IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rddp] Tagged vs Untagged wrt providing message length

Caitlin Bestler <cait@asomi.com> Mon, 19 January 2004 19:36 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03967 for <rddp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AifCI-0006sp-T6 for rddp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:31 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0JJaU64026455 for rddp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:30 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AifCI-0006sc-Pc for rddp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03948 for <rddp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AifCB-0006nF-00 for rddp-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:23 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aif9I-0006Z9-00 for rddp-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:33:25 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aif5G-0006Gx-00 for rddp-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:29:14 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aif52-0006Ji-LL; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:29:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aif4I-0006IK-FF for rddp@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:28:14 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03568 for <rddp@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aif45-0006Bb-00 for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:28:01 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiez7-0005nj-00 for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:22:53 -0500
Received: from lists.your-site.com ([140.186.45.30] helo=thebe.your-site.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aieuk-0005Jx-00 for rddp@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:22 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (64-144-5-25.client.dsl.net [64.144.5.25]) by thebe.your-site.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161B0244B0B; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:24 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <000801c3deab$caf67830$467fa8c0@i8600>
References: <000801c3deab$caf67830$467fa8c0@i8600>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <1B34301E-4AB4-11D8-AE8C-003065D48EE0@asomi.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Barry Reinhold <bbr@lampreynetworks.com>
From: Caitlin Bestler <cait@asomi.com>
Subject: Re: [rddp] Tagged vs Untagged wrt providing message length
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:17:21 -0600
To: RDDP <rddp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rddp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rddp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF Remote Direct Data Placement (rddp) WG <rddp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rddp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Jan 19, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Barry Reinhold wrote:

> Hemal (or whomever wishes to post),
> 	Clause 7.4 states that:
>
> "At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the ULP Message Length to the ULP
>    when an Untagged DDP Message is Delivered."
>
> Is it thus not required that the length be provided for Tagged DDP
> messages?
>
> I guess I am unclear as to why length is needed for the untagged but 
> not
> for the tagged.
>
> Barry Reinhold
> Lamprey Networks
> bbr@lampreynetworks.com
> (603) 868-8411
>

Normally DDP provides no notification of tagged placements
to the ULP -- except that delivery of an untagged message
cannot take place until all *prior* tagged messages have
been fully placed.

Further, even though the standard does not state that the
DDP layer MUST NOT tell the ULP about individual tagged
placements, the ULP MUST NOT use the buffers until the
trailing untagged message is delivered. So there wouldn't
be any point in supplying that information.

The benefits of suppressing ULP interactions for tagged
messages is covered in the applicability statement.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-01.txt





-- 
Caitlin Bestler - cait@asomi.com - http://asomi.com/
http://asomi.com/CaitlinBestlerPublicPgpKey.html


_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
rddp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email