netdev - Re: RDS: no freely available protocol specification?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7iprgolyb7.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:04:28 +0100
From:	Juliusz Chroboczek <Juliusz.Chroboczek@....jussieu.fr>
To:	Andy Grover <andy.grover@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	RDS Devel <rds-devel@....oracle.com>
Subject: Re: RDS: no freely available protocol specification?

Thanks for your reply, Andy.

>> I've tried searching the web, and I cannot find a freely available
>> protocol specification.

> Look in net-next tree, Documentation/networking/rds.txt.

I cannot find a protocol description, let alone a full specification, in
this document.

>> I am wondering whether we wish to encourage the use of proprietary
>> (undocumented) protocols,

> I thought "rough consensus and running code" was the IETF credo?

I'm not the IETF, but it is my understanding that rough consensus is
achieved by writing protocol specifications, and submitting them as
Internet-Drafts.  (While some Internet-Drafts are destined to become
standards track RFCs after IETF consensus has been reached, many are only
submitted in order to stimulate discussion, and some only get submitted so
that they may become Informational RFCs.)

>From what I can gather from the very sparse documentation, RDS in its
current state cannot possibly achieve IETF consensus, for multiple reasons
(many of which I happen to disagree with -- but I'm not the IETF).  Still,
if Oracle find it useful, I'd like to see it published as an informational
RFC.

I'd have no objection to RDS being included in the Linux kernel without
IETF consensus, as long as the protocol is fully documented.

> If you're interested in getting an RFC drafted for RDS, then I invite you
> to start work on one. I also will accept patches to improve the
> documentation.
>
> See how this works?

Andy, please don't bully me.

                                        Juliusz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html