Sean, I think that's a good point. What it suggests to me is asking when someone proposes a "non-standard" feature, what process, procedures, documentation, support, etc. if any, should be made available by the entity making the proposal?
It seems to me asking the same questions of all proposed features is fair and reasonable, and shouldn't represent an unreasonable barrier to progress. Thoughts? If this already exists, it's my ignorance and I will apologize in advance Thanks again, Jim -----Original Message----- From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:54 PM To: 'Tziporet Koren'; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans >* Mellanox suggested to add IB over Eth - this is similar to iWARP but >more like IB (e.g. including UD), and can work over ConnectX. >A concern was raised by Intel (Dave Sommers) since it is not a standard >transport. >Decision: This request will be raised in the MWG, and they should decide >if OFA can support it. Just is just my opinion, but in the past, OFED has included non-standard features, like extended connected mode, that are still not part of the IBTA spec. Do we know if such a feature would be accepted into the Linux kernel? I think OFED should base their decision more on the answer to that question than IBTA approval. - Sean _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
