On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:10 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But is it iWarp? > > I'm not keen on seeing people abuse iwarp stuff for some non-standards > based thing. iwarp is already in a disused state, there isn't enough > community energy there to police something non-standards based. No, it is IP-based, but not iWarp. Using CM implementation for IP-network (IW_CM) was a logical decision. In fact, IW_CM can be rebranded as IP_CM as it is not tightly coupled with iWarp per se and can serve any IP-based protocols. Thanks.