[storm] RDMA protocol extensions v2 draft Section 1.1 implementation requirements

Hemal Shah <hemal@broadcom.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <hemal@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6BC1A0274 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9DQJOULewIo for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com [216.31.210.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E521A021F for <storm@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:40:50 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,789,1384329600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="12946444"
Received: from irvexchcas06.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.53]) by mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2014 14:49:36 -0800
Received: from IRVEXCHMB11.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::9cdd:3a57:8694:f610]) by IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:40:49 -0800
From: Hemal Shah <hemal@broadcom.com>
To: "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RDMA protocol extensions v2 draft Section 1.1 implementation requirements
Thread-Index: Ac8iw1AljbJ1OwHpSMe2BE+Y0cTszQ==
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:40:49 +0000
Message-ID: <2D98DD3F898B6B4DA287BF3BA07DAE932D428FDA@IRVEXCHMB11.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.9.208.64]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D98DD3F898B6B4DA287BF3BA07DAE932D428FDAIRVEXCHMB11corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [storm] RDMA protocol extensions v2 draft Section 1.1 implementation requirements
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm/>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:40:53 -0000

Section 1.1 in draft-wood-storm-rdmap-ext-v2-00.txt lists implementation requirements that state that an implementation needs to support all extensions to be complaint with v2.

We should have optional support for each feature separately and not build it in layers. That will allow an implementation to support a subset of features applicable to an implementation. For example, RDMA read v2 without supporting atomic operations makes sense on a server that does not have PCIe atomics support.

Hemal