IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [storm] Working Group Last Call - RDMA Protocol Extensions

"Sharp, Robert O" <robert.o.sharp@intel.com> Fri, 18 October 2013 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.o.sharp@intel.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDF521F9CED for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFxpdEWtkan6 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D7121F9C00 for <storm@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2013 16:52:54 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,526,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="413508138"
Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.19.9.37]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2013 16:52:30 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx151.amr.corp.intel.com (10.19.17.220) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.19.9.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:52:30 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.249]) by FMSMSX151.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:52:29 -0700
From: "Sharp, Robert O" <robert.o.sharp@intel.com>
To: Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Working Group Last Call - RDMA Protocol Extensions
Thread-Index: Ac6+Gs6sJ+ImLB7LQd2GdnKZRIwo3QGxr95gAQn2RbAA1N6PkA==
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:52:29 +0000
Message-ID: <2ABFA3E36CBB794685BFBA191CC1964952B58E52@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA1BD297B7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA255126E7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA25538F85@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA25538F85@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.107]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [storm] Working Group Last Call - RDMA Protocol Extensions
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:53:03 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the comments.  We believe that 1 and 2 are addressed in the recently posted update.  Number 3, we made a editor's note that hopefully will address that one as well.

Thanks,
Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Tom Talpey
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 1:28 PM
> To: storm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [storm] Working Group Last Call - RDMA Protocol Extensions
> 
> Final reminder - the Working Group Last Call on this document expires at EOD
> tomorrow.
> 
> 
> I have three small comments, that can be addressed by the RFC Editor if no
> other changes are required in the meantime.
> 
> 1) There are several references in the HTML version which do not appear as
> links. The [RSOCKETS], [OFA VERBS], [RFC5040] and [RFC5041] seem to have
> this issue, in several places. For consistency it would be good to correct
> these.
> 
> 2) Protocol value tables on pages 8 and 9, and all of section 7 on pages 23-26,
> begin in column 1, which is typically not done in RFCs. Indentation should be
> used here.
> 
> 3) RFC5226 appears as a normative reference, apparently because of two
> lines in the IANA Considerations section referencing it. Is this intended?
> Normally, I would expect these to be removed before publication, therefore
> so would the normative reference itself.
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email