MPA as MUST over TCP

This one I can do something about now ...

The WG chair believes that the rough consensus of the RDDP
WG is that MPA MUST be used to employ RDDP over TCP.

Please post any objections to the list.  This could
create a need for some interesting (but not impossible)
wordsmithery if MPA does not get upgraded to standards
track from its current direction of becoming an
informational RFC (e.g., won't be able to state that
requirement in the DDP or RDMAP documents).

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rddp-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:rddp-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Krause
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: rddp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [rddp] MPA 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking through the various e-mail strings to understand if 
> consensus on MPA negotiation has been reached or not.  There was some 
> discussion on at least one proposal but I don't see a 
> resolution.  I would 
> hope that MPA was viewed as a MUST requirement for RDMA over 
> TCP so that an 
> equivalent level of CRC protection and framing as provided by SCTP is 
> available for ULP to count on when they are designed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> rddp <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
>