[mpiwg-p2p] Info assertions draft

[Jim Dinan]

Hi Hubert,

Thanks for the feedback.  The language we used in the proposal is
consistent with the existing spec.  I think I would prefer to let the
Hybrid WG make this change when the Forum decides to move ahead with their
renaming proposal.

 ~Jim.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Hubert Ritzdorf <
Hubert.Ritzdorf at emea.nec.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in conjunction with the process discussion in the hybrid group:
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to replace "process" by "MPI process" in the new
> text on Pages 249-250 ?
>
> Hubert
> ------------------------------
> *From:* mpiwg-p2p [mpiwg-p2p-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of
> Jim Dinan [james.dinan at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2016 9:40 PM
> *To:* MPI WG Point To Point Communications working group
> *Subject:* [mpiwg-p2p] Info assertions draft
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have attached an updated draft for the info assertions proposal.  The
> two week deadline is quickly approaching; please send feedback before the
> end of the week.
>
> Thanks,
>  ~Jim.
>
>
> Click here
> <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/+xpPmuWT7LDWQxILzJ5p9zsHlc6Ch4!k4z!cQRfe9O+ZalWYVqWYWDqNqu3Lw+8K!wQ2sNkfd43jwSwM3UsBbQ==>
> to report this email as spam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-p2p mailing list
> mpiwg-p2p at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-p2p
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-p2p/attachments/20160212/6ed702c0/attachment-0001.html>