Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Question on socket options

From: Kacheong Poon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:45:05 -0800 (PST)

> In the section 7 of the "Sockets API Extensions for SCTP" draft where
> various SCTP level socket options 
> are defined, options SO_LINGER, SO_NODELAY, SO_RCVBUF, SO_SNDBUF are
> also mentioned?  Shouldn't these be socket-level options (SOL_SOCKET)
> and not SCTP level?

Strictly speaking, they are transport level options.  But unfortunately,
the BSD socket API has them defined in the socket level.  Since we
want to allow current TCP apps to be ported to use SCTP without changes
(except for using a new protocol in the socket() call) if possible,
we have to follow the current socket API practise.

> Also, there is a typo on page 47, probably just a "cut n paste"
> overlook!
> 
>   /* if a send fails we want to know it */
>     if (setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_SCTP, SCTP_RECVSENDFAILEVNT,
>                &onoff, 4) < 0) {
>       perror("setsockopt SCTP_RECVASSOCEVNT");
>       exit(1);

Thanks.

							K. Poon.
							[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg