[tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (4656)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 06 April 2016 11:19 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 5957512D7AA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 75qNBhFnYkLQ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A91812D767 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B8CF718000C; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
To: randall@lakerest.net, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, david.black@emc.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160406111821.B8CF718000C@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 04:18:21 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/5ikGO2cjr7EZnWEPHL3ULUj509o>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (4656)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:19:16 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4960, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4960&eid=4656 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Lionel Morand <lionel.morand@orange.com> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- 6.2. Acknowledgement on Reception of DATA Chunks The SCTP endpoint MUST always acknowledge the reception of each valid DATA chunk when the DATA chunk received is inside its receive window. When the receiver's advertised window is 0, the receiver MUST drop any new incoming DATA chunk with a TSN larger than the largest TSN received so far. If the new incoming DATA chunk holds a TSN value less than the largest TSN received so far, then the receiver SHOULD drop the largest TSN held for reordering and accept the new incoming DATA chunk. In either case, if such a DATA chunk is dropped, the receiver MUST immediately send back a SACK with the current receive window showing only DATA chunks received and accepted so far. The dropped DATA chunk(s) MUST NOT be included in the SACK, as they were not accepted. The receiver MUST also have an algorithm for advertising its receive window to avoid receiver silly window syndrome (SWS), as described in [RFC0813]. The algorithm can be similar to the one described in Section 4.2.3.3 of [RFC1122]. The guidelines on delayed acknowledgement algorithm specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC2581] SHOULD be followed. Specifically, an acknowledgement SHOULD be generated for at least every second packet (not every second DATA chunk) received, and SHOULD be generated within 200 ms of the arrival of any unacknowledged DATA chunk. In some situations, it may be beneficial for an SCTP transmitter to be more conservative than the algorithms detailed in this document allow. However, an SCTP transmitter MUST NOT be more aggressive than the following algorithms allow. An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the receiving application consumes new data. IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The maximum delay for generating an acknowledgement may be configured by the SCTP administrator, either statically or dynamically, in order to meet the specific timing requirement of the protocol being carried. An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay to be configured to be more than 500 ms. In other words, an implementation MAY lower this value below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms. [ remaining of the section unchanged ] *********************************************************************** 15. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED: RTO.Initial - 3 seconds RTO.Min - 1 second RTO.Max - 60 seconds Max.Burst - 4 RTO.Alpha - 1/8 RTO.Beta - 1/4 Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address) Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts HB.interval - 30 seconds HB.Max.Burst - 1 IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The SCTP implementation may allow ULP to customize some of these protocol parameters (see Section 10). Note: RTO.Min SHOULD be set as recommended above. Corrected Text -------------- 6.2. Acknowledgement on Reception of DATA Chunks The SCTP endpoint MUST always acknowledge the reception of each valid DATA chunk when the DATA chunk received is inside its receive window. When the receiver's advertised window is 0, the receiver MUST drop any new incoming DATA chunk with a TSN larger than the largest TSN received so far. If the new incoming DATA chunk holds a TSN value less than the largest TSN received so far, then the receiver SHOULD drop the largest TSN held for reordering and accept the new incoming DATA chunk. In either case, if such a DATA chunk is dropped, the receiver MUST immediately send back a SACK with the current receive window showing only DATA chunks received and accepted so far. The dropped DATA chunk(s) MUST NOT be included in the SACK, as they were not accepted. The receiver MUST also have an algorithm for advertising its receive window to avoid receiver silly window syndrome (SWS), as described in [RFC0813]. The algorithm can be similar to the one described in Section 4.2.3.3 of [RFC1122]. The guidelines on delayed acknowledgement algorithm specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC2581] SHOULD be followed. Specifically, an acknowledgement SHOULD be generated for at least every second packet (not every second DATA chunk) received, and SHOULD be generated within 200 ms of the arrival of any unacknowledged DATA chunk. In some situations, it may be beneficial for an SCTP transmitter to be more conservative than the algorithms detailed in this document allow. However, an SCTP transmitter MUST NOT be more aggressive than the following algorithms allow. An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the receiving application consumes new data. IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The maximum delay for generating an acknowledgement may be configured by the SCTP administrator, either statically or dynamically, in order to meet the specific timing requirement of the protocol being carried. An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay (protocol parameter 'SACK.Delay') to be configured to be more than 500 ms. In other words, an implementation MAY lower the value of 'SACK.Delay' below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms. [ remaining of the section unchanged ] *********************************************************************** 15. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED: RTO.Initial - 3 seconds RTO.Min - 1 second RTO.Max - 60 seconds Max.Burst - 4 RTO.Alpha - 1/8 RTO.Beta - 1/4 Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address) Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts HB.interval - 30 seconds HB.Max.Burst - 1 SACK.Delay - 200 milliseconds IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: The SCTP implementation may allow ULP to customize some of these protocol parameters (see Section 10). Note: RTO.Min SHOULD be set as recommended above. Notes ----- In section 6.2, the name 'SACK.Delay' is given to the protocol parameter that indicate themaximum delay for generating a SACK. In section 15, the list of SCTP protocol parameters and associated recommended value is not complete. The maximum delay for generating an acknowledgement ('SACK.Delay') is missing from this list. 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC4960 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-05) -------------------------------------- Title : Stream Control Transmission Protocol Publication Date : September 2007 Author(s) : R. Stewart, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Transport Area Working Group Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (4656) RFC Errata System
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… Randall Stewart
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… lionel.morand
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… lionel.morand
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4960 (… Michael Tuexen