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 05:03 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbgS-00050d-1N; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbgQ-00050M-TB; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:38 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GYbgP-0006CK-LG; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:38 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2006 01:03:35 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9E53ZjP018756; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:35 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9E53ZDM007253; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:35 -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 01:03:34 -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 01:03:34 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20061014000127.0247aee8@email.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jmpolk@email.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:03:33 -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 05:03:34.0674 (UTC) FILETIME=[19D86F20:01C6EF4E]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1289; t=1160802215; x=1161666215; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; 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=jjbI+ig3q+iU1jrBpGx/pTyu+cYwXGNPhYMmQrj0o8qBzo23Sc+bSK3UTo6OF0r//AB6MhS5 avl5rCtFsyQIORykqiVnsjPLT3KS0I5EY51kkZgF6TbVO6O4bDzsG7Gy;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
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?
>
>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.

SCTP-AUTH has a large and well written IANA section, and is not void of 
doing anything, so I'm confused by comparing what happens to Padding with 
what happens to AUTH.  Lars, can you explain your comments some more?


>Lars
>--
>Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories
>
>
>
>

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