[tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6458 (6081)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 09 April 2020 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B303A0A9F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LaZ9VyvS7F6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7ED73A0A9E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2FBA6F4070F; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: randall@lakerest.net, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, ka-cheong.poon@oracle.com, peterlei@cisco.com, vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, david.black@dell.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, wes@mti-systems.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: wanglihe@ebupt.com, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200409044654.2FBA6F4070F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 21:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/0cviY1kyC9ve6YEc2LVtccLC_BU>
Subject: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6458 (6081)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 04:47:08 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6458,
"Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6081

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: wanglihe <wanglihe@ebupt.com>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------
8.1.26    must indicate that they are
   finished sending a particular record by including the SCTP_EOR flag.

but I can not find where to use SCTP_EOR flag.

because

5.1  The msg_flags are not used when sending a message with sendmsg().

3.1.4  flags:  No new flags are defined for SCTP at this level.  See
      Section 5 for SCTP-specific flags used in the msghdr structure.

4.1.8 same with 3.1.4

9.10, 9.12    flags:  The same flags as used by the sendmsg() call flags (e.g.,
      MSG_DONTROUTE).

9.7   flags:  The same as sinfo_flags (see Section 5.3.2).

5.3.2 sinfo_flags not mention about it  

Corrected Text
--------------
maybe msg_flags should be used.

Notes
-----
Another problem is that, I think it should be discuss about debfine a flag like SCTP_BOR for beginning(init chunk) of a Record, because a stream of this socket(assoc) can still be used after send a SCTP_EOR.

And between  a init chunk and  a STCP_EOR,  if I change SCTP_EXPLICIT_EOR status, what the socket will send the message?

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6458 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-32)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Publication Date    : December 2011
Author(s)           : R. Stewart, M. Tuexen, K. Poon, P. Lei, V. Yasevich
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Transport Area Working Group
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG