On Feb 2, 2017, at 7:02 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns <[email protected]> wrote:

I did not want to mandate a specific length. The way I understand it is that the ID is an integer of some length, where parts can be masked and queried for information.

I think what I was trying to say (poorly) was that I am proposing a *logical* tuple. How long each item is in the tuple, and how we map that to C types are different questions. Your proposed prototype had a single uint64_t parameter; I just wanted to make sure we were still talking about a tuple, not a single (logical) value.

In my last mail, yes, but I do acknowledge that additional fields are necessary. I just asked about the vendor ID, as that is the one mostly regulated, right? The vendors are free to use the remaining bits as they see fit, right?

I would think so.

Yes, I read about the OUI. As far as I know, these are _bought_ from and controlled by IEEE. How would an MPI vendor obtain one of those to use for software events from inside the MPI?

Buy one. -- Jeff Squyres [email protected]