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

[Victor Pascual Avila <[e-mail]>]

IMO rfc4168 is pretty clear on the topic:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4168#section-5

-Victor

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Naveen Kottapalli
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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: [phone]
>> Fax: [phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila