Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26 started

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:10:53 -0600

TSVWG

I am starting the WGLC for

"Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)"
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket/

this is a 2 week WGLC, ending February 22nd, 2011 or when the chairs 
feel the WG has reviewed the draft and reached consensus to progress 
towards the ADs with the goal of becoming a proposed standard (PS) RFC.

The chairs require substantive feedback from the WG regarding this 
draft before consensus can be called.

I will be the document shepherd.

James
TSVWG chair

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:51:54 -0700

James,

The intended status of the document is INFORMATIONAL not PS.

Was that just a typo?

If not, my first comment is that any RFC issued for C-language
APIs must be INFORMATIONAL and not PS.

--brian

James M. Polk wrote:                         (Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:10:53)
> The chairs require substantive feedback from the WG regarding this draft 
> before consensus can be called.
>

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:04:50 -0600

>The intended status of the document is INFORMATIONAL not PS.

%*(&^%^%, *$%*&%.... and %^*&%*&^

grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

I messed up obviously.

That ought to teach me *not* to cut and paste (from the stream reset 
WGLC) without verifying.

grrrrrrrrrrrr!!

I apologize for the boneheaded mistake.

I own it.

This doc is INFORMATIONAL.

err, thanks Brian for pointing this out so quickly.

James
with my chair hat on (covering my face in embarrassment!)

---

From: Thomas Dreibholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:45:45 +0100

Dear all,

I have read the document and think it should be progressed.

Since the early versions of this draft, I have implemented the described API 
as part of the Socket API library for the well-known SCTPLIB userland SCTP 
implementation. The implementation is Open Source and can be found here: 
http://www.sctp.de/sctp-download.html .

I am also the author and maintainer of RSPLIB, the Open Source RSerPool 
implementation, which can be found here: http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-
essen.de/dreibholz/rserpool/ . RSerPool is based on SCTP, and RSPLIB makes use 
of a lot of advanced features of SCTP and its API. Since RSPLIB currently runs 
with kernel SCTP on Linux, FreeBSD and MacOS X as well as userland SCTP with 
SCTPLIB/Socket API on all supported platforms, I have also used the SCTP API 
of multiple independent SCTP implementations. In particular, due to its multi-
platform support and advanced SCTP usage, RSPLIB is a very useful tool to test 
the SCTP Socket API.

I think the API described in the draft is very useful and having it fixed as 
RFC is crucial for a more widespread and compatible adoption of SCTP into 
applications.

> draft before consensus can be called.

Best regards
-- 
=======================================================================
 Dr. Thomas Dreibholz

 University of Duisburg-Essen,                   Room ES210
 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics              Ellernstraße 29
 Computer Networking Technology Group            D-45326 Essen/Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 E-Mail:     [email-masked]
 Homepage:   http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh
=======================================================================

---

From: Irene Rüngeler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:48:04 +0100

Dear all,

I have read SCTP Socket API draft and implemented part of it in the INET framework which is a widely used part of the OMNeT++ simulation environment.
The Socket API is very important in that it defines an interface between SCTP and its upper layer, and thus makes porting applications from one platform to another easier.
I am very much in favor of advancing the draft to an RFC.

Best regards

Irene Rüngeler

>> From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
>> Date: February 8, 2011 4:10:53 AM GMT+01:00
>> To: tsvwg <[email-masked]>
>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26 started
>> 
>> TSVWG
>> 
>> this is a 2 week WGLC, ending February 22nd, 2011 or when the chairs feel the WG has reviewed the draft and reached consensus to progress towards the ADs with the goal of becoming a proposed standard (PS) RFC.
>> 
>> The chairs require substantive feedback from the WG regarding this draft before consensus can be called.
>> 

*****************************************

Dr. Irene Rüngeler 
Fachhochschule Münster, Abt. Steinfurt 
FB Elektrotechnik und Informatik 
Labor für Netzwerkprogrammierung, Datenbanklabor 
Bismarckstr. 11 
Tel.: 02551-962561 
Fax: 02551-962563 
EMail: [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:59:13 +0100

I also think that this is an extremely useful document and would like  
to see it as an RFC; and being version number 26, it has gone through  
enough iterations, I suppose  :-)

There's really not much of a point in specifying a transport protocol  
without providing its API IMO (and I'm looking in the direction of  
DCCP when I say this...)

---

From: Robin Seggelmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:55:42 +0100

Dear all,

I have also read the draft and have been working with the SCTP API for quite some time. Among other SCTP related projects, I implemented SCTP support for OpenSSL and the API draft has always been a very helpful resource and should become an RFC as soon as possible.

Best regards
Robin