Re: [Tsvwg] [SCTP] a small correction in RFC 4960
Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen <at> lurchi.franken.de>
2008-06-12 18:30:48 GMT
I have submitted an errata. The correct text should say in section 8.3:
When the value of this counter exceeds the protocol parameter
'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may also
optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
this destination address.
On Jun 12, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Submit it as an errata to the RFC Editor for now.
> On 2008-6-12, at 9:44, ext Michael Tüxen wrote:
>> Hi Ash,
>> yes, that is a (at least by me) known issue... This comes up, when
>> dimension your parameters to fullfil a given path error detection
>> I'm not sure if we should start again an errata ID...
>> Best regards
>> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Ash Kat wrote:
>>> 'Path.Max.Retrans' parmeters specifies the maximum number of
>>> retransmission on a path before that path is marked down.
>>> Section 8.3 of RFC says:
>>> When the value of this counter ""reaches"" the protocol parameter
>>> 'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
>>> destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may
>>> optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
>>> this destination address.
>>> This will make the Heartbeat to be re-transmitted one count less
>>> then 'Path.Max.Retrans'
>>> This is correct in Section 8.2 which says:
>>> When the value in the error counter ""exceeds"" the protocol
>>> 'Path.Max.Retrans' of that destination address, the endpoint should
>>> mark the destination transport address as inactive, and a
>>> notification SHOULD be sent to the upper layer.
>>> So Section 8.3 should be modified and a path should be marked down
>>> when error count exceeds 'Path.Max.Retrans'.
>>> Ashwani Kathuria
>>> Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite
>>> Yahoo! Group.