Re: SCTP API document..

[Randall Stewart <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 8, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Michael Tüxen wrote:

> On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 4:08 AM, Michael Tüxen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All:
>>>> 
>>>> A bit late but Kirk did finally reply..
>>>> 
>>>> I answered his query about the deprecated features... I am not sure
>>>> if we can do anything about the way bindx works...
>>>> 
>>>> The non-mention of the replacement for the deprecated interface is probably
>>>> an easy fix.
>>> I'll add such a sentence and we can include this in the next
>>> rev (assuming there is one based on the comments we get from the IETF LC).
>>> 
>>> Regarding the sctp_bindx() comment: We state this in the last paragraph
>>> of the sctp_bindx() section, were we state that it might be a good idea
>>> to use a single address only.
>> 
>> Yeah, I know.. and I think thats Kirk's comment... basically it
>> would be nice if you did NOT have to do that...
>> 
>> But I do not see an easy alternative ;-0
> I think for sctp_bindx() we have to keep it. But MPTCP is
> another protocol providing support for multihoming.
> 
> For binding multiple addresses they refer to sctp_bindx().
> But I think sctp_bindx() should be SCTP specific, and
> we possibly should define a bindx(), or whatever you
> would name it, call which support SCTP and MPTCP, which
> only accepts one address. This is pretty much what Kacheong
> suggested years ago... I still have to send comments regarding
> the MPTCP API ID...
> 

Ahh, I did not know they had one.. I will have to look at it.

R 

------------------------------
Randall Stewart
803-317-4952 (cell)