[cgl_discussion] POC Meeting Agenda 9:30 PST

Venkata Jagana jagana at us.ibm.com
Tue Nov 4 14:40:50 PST 2003

Another item for errata discussion:

>The SCTP requirement (STD 4.0) lists RFC 1112
>(Host extensions for IP multicasting)and we believe that
>it's a mistake - It isn't an SCTP supporting

>So, please remove RFC 1112 from the list there.

>The SCTP maintainer suggests that we should add
>RFC 3309 (SCTP Checksum Change) to the SCTP
>RFC list. This RFC is already supported within
>the code which is part of 2.6 kernel.


                      Steven Dake                                                                                                              
                      <sdake at mvista.com>                To:       cgl_discussion at osdl.org                                                      
                      Sent by:                          cc:                                                                                    
                      cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  [cgl_discussion] POC Meeting Agenda 9:30 PST                                 
                      11/04/2003 01:21 PM                                                                                                      
                      Please respond to sdake                                                                                                  

Please note the time has moved for the POC meeting to account for the
clustering meeting that will take place at 8:30 AM PST.  Also, the
conference dialin has changed and will be published to cgl-techboard.

Define errata process
Apply errata process to currently known errata (if there is time)
   To prepare, please read specs and possible errata below so we can
discuss the errata in detail.

Possible Errata #1
I guess I wasn't making myself clear in the original email.

What I was trying to address are two things:

1) RFC 2452, RFC 2454, RFC 2466 will all be obsolete soon.  And my
   work will be based on the upcoming Internet Draft, which merges
   the IPv4 and IPv6 mib.

2) There is no new Internet Draft for RFC 2454 (UDP mib) defined yet.
   So I think we should down-grade it to Priority 2.

I suggest we change this requirement for CGL 2.0 into something like
the following:

Description: CGL shall provide required support for all IPv6 MIBs as
specified by IETF IPv6 WG. The support has to be based on the new IP
MIB standard, including:

* "Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)"

* "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol

This means that internally within the kernel IPv6 stack, statistics
information corresponding to MIB data must be gathered and saved for
retrieval by an SNMP Agent.

And also we should add another requirement to specifically address the
UDP mib issue.

Possible Errata #2
In the document
> http://www.osdl.org/docs/cgl_20_p1_project_list___pdf_format.pdf,
> the acronym SCTP is expanded incorrectly.
> SCTP really stands for "Stream Control Transmission Protocol".
> (or Super TCP, but we're not supposed to say that in public :-).

Possible Errata #3:
CCM 1.2
statement says "must report a problem immediately".
what does immediately mean?  Immediately means to me 0 msec which is an
impossible goal...  Shouldn't this be a time interval?

Possible Errata #4
grammer problem
statement says "there is not easy way to configure it"
should be
"there is no easy way to configure it"

Possible Errata #5
checkpoint read/write access time that is less then 5ms for each 4k page
for two nodes

Possible Errata #6
Does this mean a checkpoint between two nodes of a 4k page takes less
then 5ms from entry to delivery?  Should we clarify what is meant?

Possible Errata #7
AVL 3.1
includes an extra bullet
is text missing, or is the bullet extra?


cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list