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

Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Thu, 09 April 2020 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
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 26E5C3A0F8C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 nDBczWYI_-yZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (mail-n.franken.de [193.175.24.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 505543A0F8A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:2961:6e9e:1cd:d987] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:2961:6e9e:1cd:d987]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by drew.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EB04726DF446; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:40:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Message-Id: <B5F6CD48-D7C5-477C-894C-F0CC2574BF83@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE873AE9-C97A-4775-B9F1-86877A9A6FB1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 23:40:20 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20200409044654.2FBA6F4070F@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: randall@lakerest.net, Kacheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@oracle.com>, Peter Lei <peterlei@cisco.com>, vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, david.black@dell.com, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, wes@mti-systems.com, wanglihe@ebupt.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20200409044654.2FBA6F4070F@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/BFZVIMkhuVM6YNuGvwpMV4mcWoU>
Subject: Re: [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 21:40:29 -0000

> On 9. Apr 2020, at 06:46, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
I agree, that text describing where to use the SCTP_EOR flag is missing.

It can be used in the snd_flags field of the sctp_sndinfo structure.
It can also be used in the sinfo_flags field of the sctp_sndrcvinfo structure,
which is deprecated.
> 
> 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.
I don't think this is needed, since if you know when a message ends, the next userdata on the same
stream with the same ordering property is the beginning.
> 
> And between  a init chunk and  a STCP_EOR,  if I change SCTP_EXPLICIT_EOR status, what the socket will send the message?
What happens if you are have not completed to provide a complete message and you turn off SCTP_EXPLICIT_EOR
is not specified. An implementation could fail the disabling of SCTP_EXPLICIT_EOR, but I don't think the
BSD stack does this. I guess (not tested) it will terminate the current message with the next send call.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 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
>