Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Connection Establishment
RFC 6581

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-05 for -)
No email
send info
Readable document, thank you.

RDMA is not a "well known" acronym at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt

You should expand it in the Abstract and Introduction.

(You might also want to lobby the RFC Editor to get it made "well known"

MPA will also need expansion in the Abstract.

---

FULPDU:  Framed Upper Layer Protocol PDU

How many letter Ps?

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-04 for -)
No email
send info
- The abstract uses the asconyms MPA and RDMA without expansion,
it'd be better not to do that and generally many acronyms are
used before being expanded - a pass to fix that would be useful

- The security considerations section says that this changes
nothing compared to RFC 5044, however, I guess that a peer 
could try a DoS against another peer by setting large xRD
values, but I don't know if that's significant enough to
warrant a mention or not. Is it? If it were, then I guess
just a warning that implementations ought to have some kind of
sanity checking on those inputs would suffice.

- Just out of curiosity - RFCs 5043 and 5044 seem to say: "if
you want security, do IPsec" - is that how things are actually
deployed?

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info