Fwd: SCTP API document..
Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Mon, 07 March 2011 22:33 UTC
Return-Path: <rrs@lakerest.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759FB3A6955 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:33:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GLbP0wRcqKBR for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lakerest.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:240:585:2:213:d4ff:fef3:2d8d]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0583A6809 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.53] ([10.1.1.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakerest.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p27MYFWP033376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:34:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net)
From: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Fwd: SCTP API document..
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:34:15 -0500
References: <201103072140.p27Le5QE051998@chez.mckusick.com>
To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <8037A893-D2A9-4C5E-96A4-E57AD7D23D49@lakerest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
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: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:33:06 -0000
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. R Begin forwarded message: > From: Kirk McKusick > Date: March 7, 2011 4:40:05 PM EST > To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> > Subject: Re: SCTP API document.. > >> From: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> >> Subject: Re: SCTP API document.. >> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:00:06 -0500 >> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> >> >> Kirk: >> >> Your input would be appreciated... You might want to just >> scan the document.. its pretty large ;-0 >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26.txt >> >> The above link is the last version.. There were some minor english >> comments just discussed on the list (Michael T prompted a few people >> as well and one of them did a detailed review)... >> >> I understand your time crunch... it would be nice if you >> make a couple of comments though ;-) >> >> R > > Finally got around to looking at this document (well version 27 > actually :) It was the first time that I had dived down into the > details of SCTP. You have done a good job of integrating it into > the historic sockets interface. As this was my first time looking > at SCTP I cannot be much help in finding bugs. So my comments are > limited to things that I found confusing. > > The 6.2.1. SCTP_EVENTS option is DEPRECATED. Most of the DEPRECATED > interfaces start with a note pointing to what should be used in its > place. This interface lacks that pointer (though the replacement > does follow immediately). > > Also, I am curious why a new standard documents already deprecated > interfaces? Is it that existing implementations have them? > > In 9.1. sctp_bindx() if one of several addresses fails the whole > thing fails with no indication of which address caused the problem. > This is reminicent of IBM JCL days when a single mistype in a > 50-card deck caused the whole thing to be rejected with no > indication of what was wrong. The only solution was to go through > card-by-card to find the problem. That is the suggested solution > here. One would hope that in fifty years we could do better. In > reading this interface my take was never to specify more than one > address per call. > > ~Kirk > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell)
- Fwd: SCTP API document.. Randall Stewart
- Re: SCTP API document.. Michael Tüxen
- Re: SCTP API document.. Randall Stewart
- Re: SCTP API document.. Michael Tüxen
- Re: SCTP API document.. Randall Stewart