Re: [Tsvwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-04.txt

Randall,

What in particular do you disagree with?

--brian

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Randall Stewart wrote:

> You of course make the assumption that all of the working group agrees
> with your comments..
> 
> I know I don't.
> 
> R
> 
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> 
> > The corrections and comments presented at WG Last Call for -03
> > of this draft have not been addressed in version -04.  The
> > issues and errors identified for -03, therefore, also apply
> > to version -04.  Please make the following corrections, duly
> > identified at WG Last Call, for version -05:
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:47:27 -0600
> > > From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
> > > To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > On Page 4, this draft says:
> > >
> > >          - The CRC polynomial is mapped back into SCTP transport-level
> > >            bytes.   Coefficient of x^31 gives the value of bit 0 of
> > >            SCTP byte 0, the coefficient of x^24 gives the value of
> > >            bit 7 of byte 0.  the coefficient of x^7 gives bit 0 of
> > >            bit 0 and the coefficient of x^0 0 gives bit 7 of byte 3.
> > >            The resulting four-byte transport-level sequence is the
> > >            32-bit SCTP checksum value.
> > >
> > > There is an error in here:  "bit 0 of bit 0", however, the entire
> > > paragraph is pointless and should be removed.  Please remove or at least
> > > correct this paragraph.
> > >
> > >
> > > Page 4-5.  The same problematic MUST's for calculation of the checksum
> > > from the beginning of section 2.1 (top of Page 3) is repeated (word for
> > > word it appears) across the bottom of Page 4 and the top of Page 5.
> > > Please remove this duplication.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.
> > > >
> > > > The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting)
> > > >
> > > > please send any comments to the tsvwg list
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > Scott & Allison
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> > > bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> > > http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
> > >                         ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
> > >                         ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:33:36 -0600
> > > From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
> > > To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
> > > Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, mankin@isi.edu
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Section 2.1:
> > >
> > > The draft uses the words MUST in telling the implementor where and
> > > when bits are to be replaced in the message.  It is not appropriate
> > > for the draft to do this.  CRC-32c can be calcualted without using
> > > the procedures dictated by section 2.1.  In particular SCTP checksums
> > > can be calculated without replacing the CRC with zero but can be
> > > verified with the CRC in place.  The implementatino is clearly
> > > responsible for calculating the CRC-32c checksum and verifying it
> > > in whatever fashion it may choose and the "MUST" is inappropriate
> > > as applied to the procedure in section 2.1.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.
> > > >
> > > > The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting)
> > > >
> > > > please send any comments to the tsvwg list
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > Scott & Allison
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> > > bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> > > http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
> > >                         ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
> > >                         ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:24:42 -0600
> > > From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
> > > To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
> > > Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, mankin@isi.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Please rewrite the Introduction to adopt a professional,
> > > formal and non-condescending tone.  The informal tone
> > > used in the introduction may be appropriate in e-mails
> > > between pen-pals, but sticks out as inappropriate for
> > > an RFC.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.
> > > >
> > > > The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting)
> > > >
> > > > please send any comments to the tsvwg list
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > Scott & Allison
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> > > bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> > > http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
> > >                         ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
> > >                         ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:34:15 -0500 (EST)
> > > From: Scott  Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
> > > Message-Id: <200203081334.g28DYFN20271@newdev.harvard.edu>
> > > To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > Cc: mankin@isi.edu
> > > Subject: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.
> > >
> > > The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting)
> > >
> > > please send any comments to the tsvwg list
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Scott & Allison
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
> > bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
> > http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
> >                         ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
> >                         ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg