IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pmtud] Re: [Tsvwg] Working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-01

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Sat, 14 October 2006 04:54 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbY2-0008Q2-Qs; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:54:58 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbUR-0005Jr-QN; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:15 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbUQ-0003mI-GT; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:15 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2006 21:51:15 -0700
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9E4pEAu004098; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:14 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9E4pDYJ014240; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:13 -0400
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.89.20.176]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:51:13 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20061013234912.033600d8@email.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jmpolk@email.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:51:12 -0500
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [pmtud] Re: [Tsvwg] Working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-01
In-Reply-To: <954F2274-CD83-4C1C-B4C2-CF4B520C21D2@netlab.nec.de>
References: <A2CF9A9D-E08B-488B-BAF6-1BB07D720C33@lurchi.franken.de> <451B9B8F.8000607@ericsson.com> <E05CFB40-21C8-4D31-99E8-9BCA43A8C1BD@netlab.nec.de> <A2CF9A9D-E08B-488B-BAF6-1BB07D720C33@lurchi.franken.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2006 04:51:13.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FFF07E0:01C6EF4C]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1281; t=1160801474; x=1161665474; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[pmtud]=20Re=3A=20[Tsvwg]=20Working=20group=20last=20call=20on=0 A=20=20draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-01 |To:Lars=20Eggert=20<lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, =0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20M ichael=20Tuexen=20<Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dt912MrNCUeXQtaIsb2RpYVxqj6U=3D; b=ir1hiLPr128AGp5AexKfVUuM27VmNIw4qJ+0QAWut6t+/kHO9om92okBPJPBRA8jLEtMHqrw Vi21Pf6HVPhdR2xSYKN35nvLwpZXQ5BgSea33MRGo85Oy47Uvd0JkR1L;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:54:57 -0400
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Path MTU Discovery WG <pmtud@ietf.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: pmtud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery <pmtud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pmtud>
List-Post: <mailto:pmtud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pmtud-bounces@ietf.org

At 12:46 PM 10/14/2006 +0900, Lars Eggert wrote:
>On Oct 11, 2006, at 5:57, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>>Section 5., paragraph 3:
>>> >       The reference to sctp-parameters [3] should be removed
>>>from the
>>> >       "Normative References" section after the IANA section has
>>>been
>>> >       removed.
>>>
>>>   Why would the IANA section be removed?
>>This section is written like the one for SCTP-AUTH which was
>>suggested by
>>James. I thought, that the IANA section gets deleted when IANA has
>>done
>>its job. Isn't that right? James?

I have to find my message(s) that gave this impression, because I don't 
believe I should have said this, if I did (I'm sorry, and I know 
better).  I'm searching for the messages exchange we had about this...


>The IANA section customarily gets removed when all it has is "this
>document requires no IANA actions", purely to increase readability.
>Documents that require IANA actions do keep the section when published.
>
>The same is true for SCTP-AUTH. I hadn't realized that has the same
>problem and I didn't see an email on the list about this, but the
>IANA section must remain in place there, too.
>
>Lars
>--
>Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
pmtud mailing list
pmtud@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email