Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext

"Sharp, Robert O" <robert.o.sharp@intel.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 21:11 UTC

From: "Sharp, Robert O" <robert.o.sharp@intel.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext
Thread-Index: Ac5865W+3+PDQi76TQWRLH3sDqnoewtj12JQADcqFOAA9uducA==
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:11:21 +0000
Message-ID: <2ABFA3E36CBB794685BFBA191CC1964952B2D40C@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA148BF8B1@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <2ABFA3E36CBB794685BFBA191CC1964952B1D77D@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712025D762712@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712025D762712@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext
Precedence: list

Hi David,

Thanks again.  Responses below...

Thanks,
Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 6:31 PM
> To: Sharp, Robert O; Tom Talpey; storm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext
> 
> One more small item:
> 
> > > + Section 5.2.1 Atomic operation values
> > >
> > > >   ---------+-----------+----------+----------+---------+---------
> > > >   0011b    |           |
> > > >   to       | Reserved  |            Not Specified
> > > >   1111b    |           |
> > > >   ---------+-----------+-----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ... and
> > >
> > > >   4. At the Responder, when an invalid Atomic Operation Request
> > > >      Message is delivered to the Remote Peer's RDMAP layer, an error
> > > >      is surfaced.
> > >
> > > Are the "Reserved" fields invalid?
> > >
> >
> > [Authors] Yes, the reserved values are invalid.  Clarifying text has
> > been added.
> 
> Unbeknownst to you, "Reserved" turns out to be a reserved word for IANA
> that has a meaning different from usage in other standards bodies (we hit
> this in working through IANA's comments on the iscsi-sam draft).  This is not a
> problem in the new IANA Considerations text, but we probably ought to also
> expunge use of that word here.
> 

That is unfortunate.  We changed it to un-used in the rest of the doc but don't like that much.  Also now it is different than RFC 5040.  Are you sure we want to change this?

> I suggest deleting the above table row in Figure 5, and making the following
> change to item 4 below the table:
> 
> OLD
>    4. At the Responder, when an invalid Atomic Operation Request
>       Message with a reserved Atomic Operation Code is delivered to the
>       Remote Peer's RDMAP layer, an error MUST be surfaced.
> NEW
>    4. At the Responder, an error MUST be surfaced in response to delivery
>       to the Remote Peer's RDMAP layer of an Atomic Operation Request
>       Message with an Atomic Operation Code that the RNIC does not support.
> 

Good suggestion.

> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Sharp, Robert O
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:23 PM
> > To: Tom Talpey; storm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments!  The author's responses are embedded below...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >

[storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-rdmap… Tom Talpey
Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-r… Sharp, Robert O
Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-r… Black, David
Re: [storm] Review comments on draft-ietf-storm-r… Sharp, Robert O