Subject: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:34:15 -0500 (EST)

This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.

The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting) 

please send any comments to the tsvwg list 

thanks

Scott & Allison

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:33:36 -0600

Scott,

Section 2.1:

The draft uses the words MUST in telling the implementor where and
when bits are to be replaced in the message.  It is not appropriate
for the draft to do this.  CRC-32c can be calcualted without using
the procedures dictated by section 2.1.  In particular SCTP checksums
can be calculated without replacing the CRC with zero but can be
verified with the CRC in place.  The implementatino is clearly
responsible for calculating the CRC-32c checksum and verifying it
in whatever fashion it may choose and the "MUST" is inappropriate
as applied to the procedure in section 2.1.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:24:42 -0600

Scott,

Please rewrite the Introduction to adopt a professional,
formal and non-condescending tone.  The informal tone
used in the introduction may be appropriate in e-mails
between pen-pals, but sticks out as inappropriate for
an RFC.

--brian

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:47:27 -0600

Scott,

On Page 4, this draft says:

	   - The CRC polynomial is mapped back into SCTP transport-level
	     bytes.   Coefficient of x^31 gives the value of bit 0 of
	     SCTP byte 0, the coefficient of x^24 gives the value of 
	     bit 7 of byte 0.  the coefficient of x^7 gives bit 0 of 
	     bit 0 and the coefficient of x^0 0 gives bit 7 of byte 3. 
	     The resulting four-byte transport-level sequence is the 
	     32-bit SCTP checksum value.

There is an error in here:  "bit 0 of bit 0", however, the entire
paragraph is pointless and should be removed.  Please remove or at least
correct this paragraph.

Page 4-5.  The same problematic MUST's for calculation of the checksum
from the beginning of section 2.1 (top of Page 3) is repeated (word for
word it appears) across the bottom of Page 4 and the top of Page 5.
Please remove this duplication.

--brian