SCTP item - RE: [cgl_discussion] POC Cancelled

Venkata Jagana jagana at us.ibm.com
Tue Nov 11 08:56:38 PST 2003






Glad to hear this perspective.


Thanks,
Venkat




                                                                                                                                               
                      "Wilson, Andrew"                                                                                                         
                      <andrew.wilson at intel.com>         To:       Venkata Jagana/Beaverton/IBM at IBMUS, <sdake at mvista.com>                       
                      Sent by:                          cc:       "Fleischer, Julie N" <julie.n.fleischer at intel.com>, cgl_discussion at osdl.org  
                      cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  RE: SCTP item - RE: [cgl_discussion] POC Cancelled                           
                      ts.osdl.org                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      11/11/2003 08:20 AM                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               




I don't think steering has any philosophical objections to
tweaking the 2.0 requirements so they continue to track the
IETF RFCs.

cheers

atw

-----Original Message-----
From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Venkata
Jagana
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:36 PM
To: sdake at mvista.com
Cc: Fleischer, Julie N; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: SCTP item - RE: [cgl_discussion] POC Cancelled



This is a very valid add-on requirement and this *must* be
added to the list right away but there is no other way since the
corresponding function in RFC 2960 is already depracated.

The reasoning for inclusion of this RFC is as follows and this
should be taken forward to the specs group:

There already exists a checksum algo in RFC 2960 and which was
determined to be fundamentally weak and so, the IETF came up with a
replacement checksum algo described in RFC 3309.

According to the text from RFC 3309:

"This document updates and replaces the
 Adler-32 checksum definition in [RFC 2960].
 Note that there is no graceful transition mechanism
 for migrating to the new checksum. Implementations
 are expected to immediately switch to the new
 algorithm; use of the old algorithm is deprecated."


Our linux implementation already switched to the algo described
in RFC 3309 as mandated and as I mentioned already, this is already
in 2.6 kernel. If we don't add it in the reqts list, basically
the CGL reqt would be behind but otherwise, distros would pick up
the new code since old code doesn't exist anymore. In addition,
our linux implementation would be interoperable with other
non-linux implementations.


Thanks,
Venkat






                      Steven Dake

                      <sdake at mvista.com>                To:
"Fleischer, Julie N" <julie.n.fleischer at intel.com>

                      Sent by:                          cc:
cgl_discussion at osdl.org

                      cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  RE:
[cgl_discussion] POC Cancelled

                      ts.osdl.org





                      11/10/2003 04:06 PM

                      Please respond to sdake









Julie,

I will add them to the errata list and we can review on the mailing list
before submitting to specs.  I'm a little concerned about the last
requirement and won't submit to specs without a more thorough
explination about the reasoning for the addition.  I suspect specs would
be concerned about adding requirements without a useful reason...

Thanks
-steve

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:26, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> > Because of a team meeting in my company, I will be unable to host
the
> > 11/12/03 POC meeting.  I will publish the errata shortly, and that
> > errata can be reviewed in the specs mailing list.
>
> Steve -
> Not sure if these can make it in without POC discussion, but, at this
week's POC, I was going to bring up the items we mentioned briefly at
the
end of last POC for the errata list:
>
> Per 11/4/03 email by Julie Fleischer:
> >Found a minor bug on page 50. "For example, AVL.7.1 Process-level
> >Non-intrusive...." should be changed to "For example, AVL.8.1
> >Process-level..." The AVL.7.1 should be changed to AVL.8.1...
> >
> >-Terence
>
> Per 11/4/03 email by Venkat Jagana:
> >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
> >RFC.
>
> >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.
>
> Thanks.
> - Julie
>
> **These opinions are not necessarily those of my employer,**
>
>

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion




_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion






More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list