Subject: [Tsvwg] RFC2960-Bis LC comments (summary)

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:56 -0500

Dear All:

The following are the changes that will be
going into RFC2960-bis. This will incorporate
the WGLC changes given by the wg and be -04 of
the document.

************************************
Changes put in the document via WGLC:
************************************
Section 1.7 added:
--------------
1.7 Changes from RFC2960	
				
   SCTP was originally defined in [RFC2960] which this document	
   obsoletes. Readers interested in the details of the various changes
   that this document incorporates are asked to consult [RFC4460].	
--------------
XML update - the -03 version used an older version of
the XML tool, which put a period at the end of each
section number. The latest version does not do that. So
for example instead of

1.6. Serial Number Arithmetic

we now get:

1.6  Serial Number Arithmetic

--------------
************************************
Requested changes lacking consensus
************************************

A request was made to change the the ICMP handling from:

ICMP8) If the ICMP code is a "Unrecognized next header type
        encountered" or a "Protocol Unreachable", an implementation MUST
        treat this message as an abort with the T bit set if it does not
        contain an INIT chunk.  If it does contain an INIT chunk and the
        association is in COOKIE-WAIT state, handle the ICMP message like
        an ABORT.

---
To:
---
<A>
ICMP8) If the ICMP code is an "Unrecognized next header type
        encountered" or a "Protocol Unreachable", an implementation MUST
        treat this message as an abort with the T bits set if it was sent to
        an UNCONFIRMED address.  If the message contained in the ICMP 
payload
        was sent to a CONFIRMED address, an implementation MAY ignore the
        ICMP message.

---
And then even modified from that to:
---
<B>
ICMP8) If the ICMP code is an "Unrecognized next header type
        encountered" or a "Protocol Unreachable", an implementation MUST
        treat this message as an abort with the T bits set if it was sent to
        an UNCONFIRMED address.  If the message contained in the ICMP 
payload
        was sent to a CONFIRMED address, contains an INIT chunk, and the
        association is in COOKIE-WAIT state, it MUST handled like at ABORT.
        Otherwise, an implementation MAY ignore the ICMP message.

-----------------------------------------------

For the above, we had 3 that wanted the document left alone,
1 that wanted version <A> and 1 that wanted version <B> but
was "on the fence".

If I have missed someones email on either LC comments OR the
consensus of the above.. please let me know by replying to this
email ;-)

Thanks

R
-- 
Randall Stewart
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222(cell)