Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 (Diameter Base Protocol)

IMHO we can specify the same as a caution note in the RFC like some of the
SIGTRAN protocols did.

Yours,
Naveen.

On 4 May 2010 06:51, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > For me I think message ordering and/or delivery is an implementation
> > issue (and hence SCTP stream assignments/usage as well). There are
> > many ways to go about this (ordered global rx queues, per-session
> > queues ... etc) and all of the depends on how you architecture your
> > implementation. This is a good reason not to have it in a protocol spec.
> >
>
> I don't quite understand that. If you leave the decision of message
> ordering to the implementation, you can easily run into one
> implementation sending its transactions unordered or in different
> streams, while the implementation on the other end expects them to come
> in ordered and in the same stream. This will lead to poor/no
> interoperability between the two implementations. I'd consider this
> property to be part of the spec. At the very least, it should be spec'd
> that the receiving end MUST be prepared to handle out-of-order or
> cross-stream transactions.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Stefan Winter
>
> --
> Stefan WINTER
> Ingenieur de Recherche
> Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de
> la Recherche
> 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
> L-1359 Luxembourg
>
> Tel: +352 424409 1
> Fax: +352 422473
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>

Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 (Diameter Base Protocol) - Section 2.1.1. SCTP Guidelines