Subject: [Tsvwg] RFC2960 SCTP protocol documentation issue

From: Mark Butler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:40:25 -0700

RFC 2960 Section 3.3.1 specifies:

   "When a user message is fragmented into multiple chunks, the TSNs are 
used by the receiver to reassemble the message. This means that the TSNs 
for each fragment of a fragmented user message MUST be strictly sequential."

Section 6.9 also specifies:

  "The transmitter MUST then assign, in sequence, a separate TSN to each 
of the DATA chunks in the series". 

I first read this as requiring the transmitter to assign TSNs to chunks 
in _consecutive_ sequence, but rather simply  _ordered_ sequence.   In 
some contexts, "strictly sequential" means "strictly ordered", rather 
than "strictly consecutive". I suggest that this be documented with the 
word "consecutive".

 - Mark Butler

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:34:51 -0700

Mark,

> than "strictly consecutive". I suggest that this be documented with the 

The first two paragraphs in this note are much clearer than the last one. ;)

--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: Mark Butler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:57:45 -0700

>The first two paragraphs in this note are much clearer than the last one. ;)
I agree, that is why the word consecutive should be used, especially in 
the second paragraph - to eliminate possible confusion. 

  - Mark B.