Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] ICMP handling with SCTP

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:22:11 -0700 (PDT)

One other thought: I think it is marvelous that someone is checking
their new protocol spec for consistency with the Host Requirements RFCs.
That reflects a degree of care and maturity that seems less common than
one could wish, in the IETF of today.

Bob Braden

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

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:41:30 +0200

Hi Bob,

just a clarification from my side. I brought the stuff with the HR up.

SCTP is in the focus of Telcos because it is originally developed for 
SS7/IP.
And that brings companies and standards bodies on the plan which work on
conformance testing. Unfortunately these guys have, lets say, only minor
protocol understanding and are scanning the RFCs for MUST to derive a
test case. They do not know how to handle differences between RFCs. That
is why I wanted to harmonize them or state clearly in the SCTP RFC that
there is a difference and it should be done like in the SCTP RFC.

Thank you very much again for your clarification.

Regarding the MUST/SHOULD I think the way to go is to enforce a MUST for
SCTP stating the difference.

We would be weaker on the ICMP(Port unreachable), I think, since 
currently
no SCTP implementation I know of sends it and I would like to encourage
people to keep it like it is.

Best regards
Michael