Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] RFC2960bis ... (SCTP in a dentist office)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:14:18 +0300

Qiaobing,

> As I explained in my earlier email to Jim, being in user-land also
> includes the situation where every thing IS user-land, i.e., no
> kernel/userspace separation as one can occasionally see in some
> DSP-based small devices.

Not meaning to quibble, but I've always considered this kind of
thing as everything being in kernel space.  

Be that as it may, Randy's point about 'pure' userland implementations
is correct.

br,
John

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

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:33:17 -0500

John,

I think the key point is whether there is a division in the operating
environment or not. It doesn't make a difference whether you call a
non-divided environment "all-user-land" or "all-kernel", or does it?

And such non-divided environments should not be ignored (remember,
people have been hoping small handheld devices to springboard IPv6
deployment).

regards,
-Qiaobing

---

From: Kacheong Poon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:04:12 -0700 (PDT)

> people have been hoping small handheld devices to springboard IPv6

When talking about this, I believe we should be careful not to make
any assumption on the interaction between kernel and user-land
code.  People sometimes assume that some crucial info used by user
land SCTP implementations can only be available in the kernel.  Thus
if we require certain address selection rules, we will exclude any
user land implementations.  This may not be necessarily true.  For
example, if an OS supports the idea of redundant interface on a link,
it may as well provide that info to any user land code.  So even an
user land SCTP implementation can decide whether to include link local
address or not.

							K. Poon.
							[email-masked]