IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] SCTP question

"Proshin, Maksim" <mproshin@mera.ru> Wed, 17 October 2018 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mproshin@mera.ru>
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 DC1D112DD85 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 01:33:01 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Ngb8KE5uZLkC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 01:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mera.ru (mail.mera.ru [188.130.168.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14BB0129AB8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 01:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmail.merann.ru ([192.168.50.72]) by mail.mera.ru with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (envelope-from <mproshin@mera.ru>) id 1gChEU-0008Pe-D0; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:31:10 +0300
Received: from e16srv02.merann.ru (192.168.50.32) by cmail.merann.ru (192.168.50.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:32:50 +0300
Received: from e16srv03.merann.ru (2001:67c:2344:50::33) by e16srv02.merann.ru (2001:67c:2344:50::32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.845.34; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:32:50 +0300
Received: from e16srv03.merann.ru ([fe80::a8ed:6b62:938e:3eee]) by e16srv03.merann.ru ([fe80::a8ed:6b62:938e:3eee%12]) with mapi id 15.01.0845.039; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:32:50 +0300
From: "Proshin, Maksim" <mproshin@mera.ru>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>
CC: "perry.wilks@bt.com" <perry.wilks@bt.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] SCTP question
Thread-Index: AdRlXIaYnYmti2juQ3WjfuYSa9RVhgAARP0AACU0VtA=
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:32:04 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:30:09 +0000
Message-ID: <5e9e468a035341cea28066c14fddcc26@mera.ru>
References: <LOXP123MB08050FABE8A17B6BF1F7E64EEBFE0@LOXP123MB0805.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20181016173620.GB20870@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181016173620.GB20870@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, ru-RU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.201.113]
x-inside-org: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Src-IF-Name: mail.mera.ru
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/DKTYMnfAPSKRNFkcjMI4eJAHKTA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] SCTP question
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:33:02 -0000

Hi Neil,

In general it's not correct to say that "shall" is the same as SHALL. Thus RFC 8174 explains that 
"only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
Saying this anyway I think that RFC 4960 actually means SHALL/MUST in that note.  

BR, Maxim


-----Original Message-----
From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 20:36
To: philip.eardley@bt.com
Cc: perry.wilks@bt.com; tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] SCTP question

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 02:42:05PM +0000, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> A colleague of mine, Perry, has a couple of questions about SCTP RFC4960. He's in the BT design team on Signalling protocols and concerned about conformance testing amongst other issues.
> 
> The statement is on page 57 of RFC4960  (section on Association initialisation) "Note: T1-init timer and T1-cookie timer shall follow the same rules given in Section 6.3."
> The question is: how should the "shall" be interpreted in this sentence? Does it mean that the S6.3 rules MUST be followed? Or does it mean that the S6.3 rules are optional - in which case, are there any thoughts about rules other than those in S6.3?
> 
The conventions section indicates that they keyword SHALL is goverened by RFC2119, which asserts SHALL is synonomous with the keywork MUST.  That is to say that the phrase above on page 57 of RFC4960 is an absolute requirement.  You have to have the T1-init and T1-cookie timer follow the same rules given in Section 6.3

Neil

> Thanks,
> Best wishes,
> Philip Eardley
> Research and Innovation
> This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential.. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you.
> We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
> British Telecommunications plc
> Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in 
> England no: 1800000
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email