The slides themselves are fine with me ­ the only comment I would have is that the second bullet on the first proposal is a general statement, we want that in any case. Any other solution, including the CVar, would have to adhere to the same requirements. Perhaps it would make more sense to put that before the ³Why not Info keys² slide and generally describe what we want to accomplish and then just say for this one idea, we have two API proposals (not proposals for different concepts). Since Bill will present them, I guess the question is for him: do you want any more details on the CVars on should we just have this as part of the discussions? Martin From: Jim Dinan <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM To: MPI WG Point To Point Communications working group <[email protected]> Cc: Schulz Martin <[email protected]>, Bill Gropp <[email protected]> Subject: Communicator assertions Hi All, I would like to raise communicator assertions (was communicator info keys) for discussion again at the upcoming meeting. I have attached a rough sketch of two possible directions for the proposal. The goal with these slides is to create an outline that can be used for discussion in the P2P WG meeting. Please send feedback, rotten tomatoes, or questions. Cheers, ~Jim.