Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt

From: "Erickson, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 10:12:17 -0500

All:

I'm trying to play catch up here regarding this draft, and apologize for
the ignorant questions, so please bear with me.

1) What is the motivation behind this - to roll in the changes from the
Implementor's Guide and rerelease the SCTP RFC (i.e., no significant
changes to the RFC if one has been following the IG)?

2) Is there a handy-dandy list of the differences between this draft and
the RFC (rather than diff'ing them and wading thru a bazillion changes?

3) As new versions of the draft are published, can a differences or
changes addendum or some other way to indicate the changes be added?

Many thanks,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Tsvwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working
Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Stream Control Transmission Protocol
	Author(s)	: R. Stewart
	Filename	: draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt
	Pages		: 150
	Date		: 2007-4-30
	
This document obsoletes RFC2960 [RFC2960] and describes the Stream
   Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP).  SCTP is designed to transport
   PSTN signaling messages over IP networks, but is capable of broader
   applications.

   SCTP is a reliable transport protocol operating on top of a
   connectionless packet network such as IP.  It offers the following
   services to its users:
   --  acknowledged error-free non-duplicated transfer of user data,
   --  data fragmentation to conform to discovered path MTU size,
   --  sequenced delivery of user messages within multiple streams, with
       an option for order-of-arrival delivery of individual user
       messages,
   --  optional bundling of multiple user messages into a single SCTP
       packet, and
   --  network-level fault tolerance through supporting of multi- homing
       at either or both ends of an association.

   The design of SCTP includes appropriate congestion avoidance behavior
   and resistance to flooding and masquerade attacks.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:29:43 +0200

Hi Mark,

see my comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael

> changes to the RFC if one has been following the IG)?
Basically: yes. The new RFC defining SCTP will be RFC 2960 + RFC 4460.
That is why RFC 4460 is written as a delta document. There might be
some editorial changes, but they are not relevant for implementations.
So if your implementations follows RFC 2960 and the RFC 4460, it will
be fine.
> the RFC (rather than diff'ing them and wading thru a bazillion  
The handy list of differences between RFC 2960 and the new future RFC is
RFC 4460. That is why it has been published as an informational RFC.
> changes addendum or some other way to indicate the changes be added?
What about looking at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-04
and using the Diff link at the top?