I-D Action:draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-09.txt

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Sat, 15 January 2011 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A178E3A6B49 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 04:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.553
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.169, BAYES_20=-0.74, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXh2973ag1dx for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 04:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EDC3A6AA9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 04:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-134-205-117.range86-134.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id BJU11262; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:53:19 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <00a801cbb4aa$544a8140$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Randy Stewart" <randall@lakerest.net>
References: <20101129173002.3461.46301.idtracker@localhost> <005501cb9138$122c99a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <2BA83253-C026-4A93-92D7-64C0324CC421@lakerest.net> <017801cb917c$08d462e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8C635E3F-12CA-4EA1-9C80-33D3FFB2E393@lakerest.net> <01c001cb9311$1a274760$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <971CDA6A-93A2-40D2-86E9-7956C5A7BCF3@lakerest.net>
Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-09.txt
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:49:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D3198B6.00BB, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4D3198C1.013C, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:51:04 -0000

I like the change to 5.2.3 but think that it needs to go further.

-08 split out two cases,

Incoming SSN Reset Request received but no response yet to the Outgoing request
Incoming SSN Reset Request received after response to the Outgoing request

assuming that the Incoming and Outgoing requests have overlapping stream

-09 subdivides the first case into overlaps completely and overlaps partially
I think that the second case is also in need of subdivision in the same way.

And, a point of clarification, in any of the four cases, is it required to send
the one response, ie you cannot send two responses in the partial overlap case,
one saying no-op and the will do (or won't do!)?

Tom Petch