[mpi3-coll] Nonblocking collectives standard draft

[Greg Bronevetsky]

> > Having said that, I object to the text that explains the reasoning
> > for removing MPI_Request_free on page 50 for exactly the reason
> > above. We shouldn't have MPI_Request_free because its generally bad.
>yes, I agree. I just wanted to stay consistent with the current standard
>with the text, but I don't like it either. I think we can't say that
>Request_free is generally bad, thu I chose this phrasing. However, I'm
>very open to changes. Can you propose a better wording?

Not really. I think that we should bring up removing MPI_Request_free 
before the community as a whole during the next face-to-face meeting. 
If they agree to remove it, we'll have our wording.

Greg Bronevetsky
Post-Doctoral Researcher
1028 Building 451
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
(925) 424-5756
bronevetsky1 at llnl.gov