Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata
Network Working Group R. Stewart
Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc.
Intended status: Informational M. Tuexen
Expires: April 25, 2019 Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
M. Proshin
Ericsson
October 22, 2018
RFC 4960 Errata and Issues
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-08.txt
Abstract
This document is a compilation of issues found since the publication
of RFC4960 in September 2007 based on experience with implementing,
testing, and using SCTP along with the suggested fixes. This
document provides deltas to RFC4960 and is organized in a time
ordered way. The issues are listed in the order they were brought
up. Because some text is changed several times the last delta in the
text is the one which should be applied. In addition to the delta a
description of the problem and the details of the solution are also
provided.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Corrections to RFC 4960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Path Error Counter Threshold Handling . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Upper Layer Protocol Shutdown Request Handling . . . . . 5
3.3. Registration of New Chunk Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Variable Parameters for INIT Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. CRC32c Sample Code on 64-bit Platforms . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Endpoint Failure Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Data Transmission Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.8. T1-Cookie Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9. Miscellaneous Typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.10. CRC32c Sample Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.11. partial_bytes_acked after T3-rtx Expiration . . . . . . . 20
3.12. Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd . . 21
3.13. HEARTBEAT ACK and the association error counter . . . . . 22
3.14. Path for Fast Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.15. Transmittal in Fast Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.16. Initial Value of ssthresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.17. Automatically Confirmed Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.18. Only One Packet after Retransmission Timeout . . . . . . 27
3.19. INIT ACK Path for INIT in COOKIE-WAIT State . . . . . . . 28
3.20. Zero Window Probing and Unreachable Primary Path . . . . 29
3.21. Normative Language in Section 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.22. Increase of partial_bytes_acked in Congestion Avoidance . 33
3.23. Inconsistency in Notifications Handling . . . . . . . . . 34
3.24. SACK.Delay Not Listed as a Protocol Parameter . . . . . . 40
3.25. Processing of Chunks in an Incoming SCTP Packet . . . . . 42
3.26. CWND Increase in Congestion Avoidance Phase . . . . . . . 43
3.27. Refresh of cwnd and ssthresh after Idle Period . . . . . 46
3.28. Window Updates After Receiver Window Opens Up . . . . . . 47
3.29. Path of DATA and Reply Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.30. Outstanding Data, Flightsize and Data In Flight Key Terms 50
3.31. CWND Degradation due to Max.Burst . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.32. Reduction of RTO.Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.33. Ordering of Bundled SACK and ERROR Chunks . . . . . . . . 55
3.34. Undefined Parameter Returned by RECEIVE Primitive . . . . 56
3.35. DSCP Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.36. Inconsistent Handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 Messages . . . 58
3.37. Handling of Soft Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.38. Honoring CWND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.39. Zero Window Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.40. Updating References Regarding ECN . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.41. Host Name Address Parameter Deprecated . . . . . . . . . 66
3.42. Conflicting Text Regarding the Supported Address Types
Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.43. Integration of RFC 6096 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.44. Integration of RFC 6335 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.45. Integration of RFC 7053 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.46. CRC32c Code Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.47. Clarification of Gap Ack Blocks in SACK Chunks . . . . . 89
3.48. Handling of SSN Wrap Arounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.49. Update RFC 2119 Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.50. Missed Text Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1. Introduction
This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
the publication of this document for [RFC4960] specifying the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). These defects may be of an
editorial or technical nature. This document may be thought of as a
companion document to be used in the implementation of SCTP to
clarify errors in the original SCTP document.
This document provides a history of the changes that will be compiled
into a BIS document for [RFC4960]. It is structured similar to
[RFC4460].
Each error will be detailed within this document in the form of:
o The problem description,
o The text quoted from [RFC4960],
o The replacement text that should be placed into an upcoming BIS
document,
o A description of the solution.
Note that when reading this document one must use care to assure that
a field or item is not updated further on within the document. Since
this document is a historical record of the sequential changes that
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
have been found necessary at various inter-op events and through
discussion on the list, the last delta in the text is the one which
should be applied.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Corrections to RFC 4960
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
References to obsoleted RFCs are in OLD TEXT sections and have the
corresponding references to the obsoleting RFCs in the NEW TEXT
sections. In addition to this, there are some references to the
obsoleted [RFC2960], which are intended.
]
3.1. Path Error Counter Threshold Handling
3.1.1. Description of the Problem
The handling of the 'Path.Max.Retrans' parameter is described in
Section 8.2 and Section 8.3 of [RFC4960] in an inconsistent way.
Whereas Section 8.2 describes that a path is marked inactive when the
path error counter exceeds the threshold, Section 8.3 says the path
is marked inactive when the path error counter reaches the threshold.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
1440.
3.1.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.3)
---------
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 also
optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
this destination address. After this, the endpoint should continue
HEARTBEAT on this destination address but should stop increasing the
counter.
---------
New text: (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. After this, the endpoint SHOULD continue
HEARTBEAT on this destination address but SHOULD stop increasing the
counter.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.23.
3.1.3. Solution Description
The intended state change should happen when the threshold is
exceeded.
3.2. Upper Layer Protocol Shutdown Request Handling
3.2.1. Description of the Problem
Section 9.2 of [RFC4960] describes the handling of received SHUTDOWN
chunks in the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state instead of the handling of
shutdown requests from its upper layer in this state.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
1574.
3.2.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 9.2)
---------
Once an endpoint has reached the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, it MUST NOT
send a SHUTDOWN in response to a ULP request, and should discard
subsequent SHUTDOWN chunks.
---------
New text: (Section 9.2)
---------
Once an endpoint has reached the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, it MUST
ignore ULP shutdown requests, but MUST continue responding
to SHUTDOWN chunks from its peer.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.2.3. Solution Description
The text never intended the SCTP endpoint to ignore SHUTDOWN chunks
from its peer. If it did, the endpoints could never gracefully
terminate associations in some cases.
3.3. Registration of New Chunk Types
3.3.1. Description of the Problem
Section 14.1 of [RFC4960] should deal with new chunk types, however,
the text refers to parameter types.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
2592.
3.3.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 14.1)
---------
The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the
chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:
---------
New text: (Section 14.1)
---------
The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an
IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC8126]. Documentation of the
chunk type MUST contain the following information:
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.43.
3.3.3. Solution Description
Refer to chunk types as intended and change reference to [RFC8126].
3.4. Variable Parameters for INIT Chunks
3.4.1. Description of the Problem
Newlines in wrong places break the layout of the table of variable
parameters for the INIT chunk in Section 3.3.2 of [RFC4960].
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
3291 and Errata ID 3804.
3.4.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.2)
---------
Variable Parameters Status Type Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
IPv4 Address (Note 1) Optional 5 IPv6 Address
(Note 1) Optional 6 Cookie Preservative
Optional 9 Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2) Optional
32768 (0x8000) Host Name Address (Note 3) Optional
11 Supported Address Types (Note 4) Optional 12
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.2)
---------
Variable Parameters Status Type Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
IPv4 Address (Note 1) Optional 5
IPv6 Address (Note 1) Optional 6
Cookie Preservative Optional 9
Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2) Optional 32768 (0x8000)
Host Name Address (Note 3) Optional 11
Supported Address Types (Note 4) Optional 12
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.4.3. Solution Description
Fix the formatting of the table.
3.5. CRC32c Sample Code on 64-bit Platforms
3.5.1. Description of the Problem
The sample code for computing the CRC32c provided in [RFC4960]
assumes that a variable of type unsigned long uses 32 bits. This is
not true on some 64-bit platforms (for example the ones using LP64).
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
3423.
3.5.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
unsigned long
generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
unsigned long
generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned long crc32 = 0xffffffffL;
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.10 and in Section 3.46.
3.5.3. Solution Description
Use 0xffffffffL instead of ~0L which gives the same value on
platforms using 32 bits or 64 bits for variables of type unsigned
long.
3.6. Endpoint Failure Detection
3.6.1. Description of the Problem
The handling of the association error counter defined in Section 8.1
of [RFC4960] can result in an association failure even if the path
used for data transmission is available, but idle.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
3788.
3.6.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.1)
---------
An endpoint shall keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
retransmissions to its peer (this includes retransmissions to all the
destination transport addresses of the peer if it is multi-homed),
including unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks.
---------
New text: (Section 8.1)
---------
An endpoint SHOULD keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
retransmissions to its peer (this includes data retransmissions
to all the destination transport addresses of the peer if it is
multi-homed), including the number of unacknowledged HEARTBEAT
chunks observed on the path which is currently used for data
transfer. Unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks observed on paths
different from the path currently used for data transfer SHOULD
NOT increment the association error counter, as this could lead
to association closure even if the path which is currently used for
data transfer is available (but idle).
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.23.
3.6.3. Solution Description
A more refined handling for the association error counter is defined.
3.7. Data Transmission Rules
3.7.1. Description of the Problem
When integrating the changes to Section 6.1 A) of [RFC2960] as
described in Section 2.15.2 of [RFC4460] some text was duplicated and
became the final paragraph of Section 6.1 A) of [RFC4960].
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
4071.
3.7.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1 A))
---------
The sender MUST also have an algorithm for sending new DATA chunks
to avoid silly window syndrome (SWS) as described in [RFC0813].
The algorithm can be similar to the one described in Section
4.2.3.4 of [RFC1122].
However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it is 0),
the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to the
receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B below). This rule allows
the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender missed
due to the SACK having been lost in transit from the data receiver
to the data sender.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1 A))
---------
The sender MUST also have an algorithm for sending new DATA chunks
to avoid silly window syndrome (SWS) as described in [RFC1122].
The algorithm can be similar to the one described in Section
4.2.3.4 of [RFC1122].
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.7.3. Solution Description
Last paragraph of Section 6.1 A) removed as intended in
Section 2.15.2 of [RFC4460].
3.8. T1-Cookie Timer
3.8.1. Description of the Problem
Figure 4 of [RFC4960] illustrates the SCTP association setup.
However, it incorrectly shows that the T1-init timer is used in the
COOKIE-ECHOED state whereas the T1-cookie timer should have been used
instead.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
4400.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.8.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 5.1.6, Figure 4)
---------
COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
(Start T1-init timer) \
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
state)
/---- COOKIE-ACK
/
(Cancel T1-init timer, <-----/
Enter ESTABLISHED state)
---------
New text: (Section 5.1.6, Figure 4)
---------
COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
(Start T1-cookie timer) \
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
state)
/---- COOKIE-ACK
/
(Cancel T1-cookie timer, <---/
Enter ESTABLISHED state)
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.9.
3.8.3. Solution Description
Change the figure such that the T1-cookie timer is used instead of
the T1-init timer.
3.9. Miscellaneous Typos
3.9.1. Description of the Problem
While processing [RFC4960] some typos were not caught.
One typo was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID 5003.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.9.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 1.6)
---------
Transmission Sequence Numbers wrap around when they reach 2**32 - 1.
That is, the next TSN a DATA chunk MUST use after transmitting TSN =
2*32 - 1 is TSN = 0.
---------
New text: (Section 1.6)
---------
Transmission Sequence Numbers wrap around when they reach 2**32 - 1.
That is, the next TSN a DATA chunk MUST use after transmitting TSN =
2**32 - 1 is TSN = 0.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.10.9)
---------
No User Data: This error cause is returned to the originator of a
DATA chunk if a received DATA chunk has no user data.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.10.9)
---------
No User Data: This error cause is returned to the originator of a
DATA chunk if a received DATA chunk has no user data.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.7, Figure 9)
---------
Endpoint A Endpoint Z {App
sends 3 messages; strm 0} DATA [TSN=6,Strm=0,Seq=2] ----------
-----> (ack delayed) (Start T3-rtx timer)
DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] --------> X (lost)
DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ---------------> (gap detected,
immediately send ack)
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=1,
/ Start=2,End=2]
<-----/ (remove 6 from out-queue,
and mark 7 as "1" missing report)
---------
New text: (Section 6.7, Figure 9)
---------
Endpoint A Endpoint Z
{App sends 3 messages; strm 0}
DATA [TSN=6,Strm=0,Seq=2] ---------------> (ack delayed)
(Start T3-rtx timer)
DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] --------> X (lost)
DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ---------------> (gap detected,
immediately send ack)
/----- SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=1,
/ Start=2,End=2]
<-----/
(remove 6 from out-queue,
and mark 7 as "1" missing report)
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.10)
---------
An endpoint bundles chunks by simply including multiple chunks in one
outbound SCTP packet. The total size of the resultant IP datagram,
including the SCTP packet and IP headers, MUST be less that or equal
to the current Path MTU.
---------
New text: (Section 6.10)
---------
An endpoint bundles chunks by simply including multiple chunks in one
outbound SCTP packet. The total size of the resultant IP datagram,
including the SCTP packet and IP headers, MUST be less than or equal
to the current PMTU.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 O))
---------
o Receive Unacknowledged Message
Format: RECEIVE_UNACKED(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer
size, [,stream id] [, stream sequence number] [,partial
flag] [,payload protocol-id])
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 O))
---------
O) Receive Unacknowledged Message
Format: RECEIVE_UNACKED(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer
size [,stream id] [,stream sequence number] [,partial
flag] [,payload protocol-id])
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 M))
---------
M) Set Protocol Parameters
Format: SETPROTOCOLPARAMETERS(association id,
[,destination transport address,]
protocol parameter list)
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 M))
---------
M) Set Protocol Parameters
Format: SETPROTOCOLPARAMETERS(association id,
[destination transport address,]
protocol parameter list)
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP2) An implementation MAY ignore all ICMPv6 messages where the
type field is not "Destination Unreachable", "Parameter
Problem",, or "Packet Too Big".
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP2) An implementation MAY ignore all ICMPv6 messages where the
type field is not "Destination Unreachable", "Parameter
Problem", or "Packet Too Big".
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP7) If the ICMP message is either a v6 "Packet Too Big" or a v4
"Fragmentation Needed", an implementation MAY process this
information as defined for PATH MTU discovery.
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP7) If the ICMP message is either a v6 "Packet Too Big" or a v4
"Fragmentation Needed", an implementation MAY process this
information as defined for PMTU discovery.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 5.4)
---------
2) For the receiver of the COOKIE ECHO, the only CONFIRMED address
is the one to which the INIT-ACK was sent.
---------
New text: (Section 5.4)
---------
2) For the receiver of the COOKIE ECHO, the only CONFIRMED address
is the one to which the INIT ACK was sent.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 5.1.6, Figure 4)
---------
COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
(Start T1-init timer) \
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
state)
/---- COOKIE-ACK
/
(Cancel T1-init timer, <-----/
Enter ESTABLISHED state)
---------
New text: (Section 5.1.6, Figure 4)
---------
COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
(Start T1-cookie timer) \
(Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state) \---> (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
state)
/---- COOKIE ACK
/
(Cancel T1-cookie timer, <---/
Enter ESTABLISHED state)
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.8. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
---------
Old text: (Section 5.2.5)
---------
5.2.5. Handle Duplicate COOKIE-ACK.
---------
New text: (Section 5.2.5)
---------
5.2.5. Handle Duplicate COOKIE ACK.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.3)
---------
By default, an SCTP endpoint SHOULD monitor the reachability of the
idle destination transport address(es) of its peer by sending a
HEARTBEAT chunk periodically to the destination transport
address(es). HEARTBEAT sending MAY begin upon reaching the
ESTABLISHED state and is discontinued after sending either SHUTDOWN
or SHUTDOWN-ACK. A receiver of a HEARTBEAT MUST respond to a
HEARTBEAT with a HEARTBEAT-ACK after entering the COOKIE-ECHOED state
(INIT sender) or the ESTABLISHED state (INIT receiver), up until
reaching the SHUTDOWN-SENT state (SHUTDOWN sender) or the SHUTDOWN-
ACK-SENT state (SHUTDOWN receiver).
---------
New text: (Section 8.3)
---------
By default, an SCTP endpoint SHOULD monitor the reachability of the
idle destination transport address(es) of its peer by sending a
HEARTBEAT chunk periodically to the destination transport
address(es). HEARTBEAT sending MAY begin upon reaching the
ESTABLISHED state and is discontinued after sending either SHUTDOWN
or SHUTDOWN ACK. A receiver of a HEARTBEAT MUST respond to a
HEARTBEAT with a HEARTBEAT ACK after entering the COOKIE-ECHOED state
(INIT sender) or the ESTABLISHED state (INIT receiver), up until
reaching the SHUTDOWN-SENT state (SHUTDOWN sender) or the SHUTDOWN-
ACK-SENT state (SHUTDOWN receiver).
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.9.3. Solution Description
Typos fixed.
3.10. CRC32c Sample Code
3.10.1. Description of the Problem
The CRC32c computation is described in Appendix B of [RFC4960].
However, the corresponding sample code and its explanation appears at
the end of Appendix C, which deals with ICMP handling.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.10.2. Text Changes to the Document
Move all of Appendix C starting with the following sentence to the
end of Appendix B.
The following non-normative sample code is taken from an open-source
CRC generator [WILLIAMS93], using the "mirroring" technique and
yielding a lookup table for SCTP CRC32c with 256 entries, each 32
bits wide.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.5. It is further updated in
Section 3.46.
3.10.3. Solution Description
Text moved to the appropriate location.
3.11. partial_bytes_acked after T3-rtx Expiration
3.11.1. Description of the Problem
Section 7.2.3 of [RFC4960] explicitly states that partial_bytes_acked
should be reset to 0 after packet loss detection from SACK but the
same is missed for T3-rtx timer expiration.
3.11.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.3)
---------
When the T3-rtx timer expires on an address, SCTP should perform slow
start by:
ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU)
cwnd = 1*MTU
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.3)
---------
When the T3-rtx timer expires on an address, SCTP SHOULD perform slow
start by:
ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU)
cwnd = 1*MTU
partial_bytes_acked = 0
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.11.3. Solution Description
Specify that partial_bytes_acked should be reset to 0 after T3-rtx
timer expiration.
3.12. Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd
3.12.1. Description of the Problem
Section 7.2.2 of [RFC4960] likely implies the wrong order of
adjustments applied to partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion
avoidance phase.
3.12.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
was greater than or equal to cwnd), increase cwnd by MTU, and
reset partial_bytes_acked to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
was greater than or equal to cwnd), partial_bytes_acked is reset
to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd). Next, cwnd is increased by 1*MTU.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.26.
3.12.3. Solution Description
The new text defines the exact order of adjustments of
partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion avoidance phase.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.13. HEARTBEAT ACK and the association error counter
3.13.1. Description of the Problem
Section 8.1 and Section 8.3 of [RFC4960] prescribe that the receiver
of a HEARTBEAT ACK must reset the association overall error counter.
In some circumstances, e.g. when a router discards DATA chunks but
not HEARTBEAT chunks due to the larger size of the DATA chunk, it
might be better to not clear the association error counter on
reception of the HEARTBEAT ACK and reset it only on reception of the
SACK to avoid stalling the association.
3.13.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 8.1)
---------
The counter shall be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer
endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK) or a HEARTBEAT
ACK is received from the peer endpoint.
---------
New text: (Section 8.1)
---------
The counter MUST be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer
endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK). When a
HEARTBEAT ACK is received from the peer endpoint, the counter SHOULD
also be reset. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK MAY choose not to
clear the counter if there is outstanding data on the association.
This allows for handling the possible difference in reachability
based on DATA chunks and HEARTBEAT chunks.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.3)
---------
Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
should clear the error counter of the destination transport address
to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
address as active if it is not so marked. The endpoint may
optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
HEARTBEAT ACK. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK must also clear the
association overall error count as well (as defined in Section 8.1).
---------
New text: (Section 8.3)
---------
Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
MUST clear the error counter of the destination transport address
to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
address as active if it is not so marked. The endpoint MAY
optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
HEARTBEAT ACK. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK SHOULD also clear
the association overall error counter (as defined in Section 8.1).
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.23.
3.13.3. Solution Description
The new text provides a possibility to not reset the association
overall error counter when a HEARTBEAT ACK is received if there are
valid reasons for it.
3.14. Path for Fast Retransmission
3.14.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] clearly describes where to retransmit data that is timed
out when the peer is multi-homed but the same is not stated for fast
retransmissions.
3.14.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.4)
---------
Furthermore, when its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD try to
retransmit a chunk that timed out to an active destination transport
address that is different from the last destination address to which
the DATA chunk was sent.
---------
New text: (Section 6.4)
---------
Furthermore, when its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD try to
retransmit a chunk that timed out to an active destination transport
address that is different from the last destination address to which
the DATA chunk was sent.
When its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD send fast
retransmissions to the same destination transport address where the
original data was sent to. If the primary path has been changed and the
original data was sent to the old primary path before the fast
retransmit, the implementation MAY send it to the new primary path.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.14.3. Solution Description
The new text clarifies where to send fast retransmissions.
3.15. Transmittal in Fast Recovery
3.15.1. Description of the Problem
The Fast Retransmit on Gap Reports algorithm intends that only the
very first packet may be sent regardless of cwnd in the Fast Recovery
phase but rule 3) of [RFC4960], Section 7.2.4, misses this
clarification.
3.15.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.4)
---------
3) Determine how many of the earliest (i.e., lowest TSN) DATA chunks
marked for retransmission will fit into a single packet, subject
to constraint of the path MTU of the destination transport
address to which the packet is being sent. Call this value K.
Retransmit those K DATA chunks in a single packet. When a Fast
Retransmit is being performed, the sender SHOULD ignore the value
of cwnd and SHOULD NOT delay retransmission for this single
packet.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.4)
---------
3) If not in Fast Recovery, determine how many of the earliest
(i.e., lowest TSN) DATA chunks marked for retransmission will fit
into a single packet, subject to constraint of the PMTU of
the destination transport address to which the packet is being
sent. Call this value K. Retransmit those K DATA chunks in a
single packet. When a Fast Retransmit is being performed, the
sender SHOULD ignore the value of cwnd and SHOULD NOT delay
retransmission for this single packet.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.15.3. Solution Description
The new text explicitly specifies to send only the first packet in
the Fast Recovery phase disregarding cwnd limitations.
3.16. Initial Value of ssthresh
3.16.1. Description of the Problem
The initial value of ssthresh should be set arbitrarily high. Using
the advertised receiver window of the peer is inappropriate if the
peer increases its window after the handshake. Furthermore, use a
higher requirements level, since not following the advice may result
in performance problems.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.16.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial value of ssthresh MAY be arbitrarily high (for
example, implementations MAY use the size of the receiver
advertised window).
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial value of ssthresh SHOULD be arbitrarily high (e.g.,
the size of the largest possible advertised window).
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.16.3. Solution Description
Use the same value as suggested in [RFC5681], Section 3.1, as an
appropriate initial value. Furthermore, use the same requirements
level.
3.17. Automatically Confirmed Addresses
3.17.1. Description of the Problem
The Path Verification procedure of [RFC4960] prescribes that any
address passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer is
automatically CONFIRMED. This, however, is unclear if only addresses
in the request to initiate association establishment are considered
or any addresses provided by the upper layer in any requests (e.g. in
'Set Primary').
3.17.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 5.4)
---------
1) Any address passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer
is automatically considered to be CONFIRMED.
---------
New text: (Section 5.4)
---------
1) Any addresses passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper
layer in the request to initialize an association are
automatically considered to be CONFIRMED.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.17.3. Solution Description
The new text clarifies that only addresses provided by the upper
layer in the request to initialize an association are automatically
confirmed.
3.18. Only One Packet after Retransmission Timeout
3.18.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] is not completely clear when it describes data transmission
after T3-rtx timer expiration. Section 7.2.1 does not specify how
many packets are allowed to be sent after T3-rtx timer expiration if
more than one packet fit into cwnd. At the same time, Section 7.2.3
has the text without normative language saying that SCTP should
ensure that no more than one packet will be in flight after T3-rtx
timer expiration until successful acknowledgment. It makes the text
inconsistent.
3.18.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial cwnd after a retransmission timeout MUST be no more
than 1*MTU.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial cwnd after a retransmission timeout MUST be no more
than 1*MTU and only one packet is allowed to be in flight
until successful acknowledgement.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.18.3. Solution Description
The new text clearly specifies that only one packet is allowed to be
sent after T3-rtx timer expiration until successful acknowledgement.
3.19. INIT ACK Path for INIT in COOKIE-WAIT State
3.19.1. Description of the Problem
In case of an INIT received in the COOKIE-WAIT state [RFC4960]
prescribes to send an INIT ACK to the same destination address to
which the original INIT has been sent. This text does not address
the possibility of the upper layer to provide multiple remote IP
addresses while requesting the association establishment. If the
upper layer has provided multiple IP addresses and only a subset of
these addresses are supported by the peer then the destination
address of the original INIT may be absent in the incoming INIT and
sending INIT ACK to that address is useless.
3.19.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 5.2.1)
---------
Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-WAIT state, an endpoint MUST
respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it sent in its
original INIT chunk (including its Initiate Tag, unchanged). When
responding, the endpoint MUST send the INIT ACK back to the same
address that the original INIT (sent by this endpoint) was sent.
---------
New text: (Section 5.2.1)
---------
Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-WAIT state, an endpoint MUST
respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it sent in its
original INIT chunk (including its Initiate Tag, unchanged). When
responding, the following rules MUST be applied:
1) The INIT ACK MUST only be sent to an address passed by the upper
layer in the request to initialize the association.
2) The INIT ACK MUST only be sent to an address reported in the
incoming INIT.
3) The INIT ACK SHOULD be sent to the source address of the
received INIT.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.19.3. Solution Description
The new text requires sending INIT ACK to a destination address that
is passed by the upper layer and reported in the incoming INIT. If
the source address of the INIT meets these conditions, sending the
INIT ACK to the source address of the INIT is the preferred behavior.
3.20. Zero Window Probing and Unreachable Primary Path
3.20.1. Description of the Problem
Section 6.1 of [RFC4960] states that when sending zero window probes,
SCTP should neither increment the association counter nor increment
the destination address error counter if it continues to receive new
packets from the peer. However, the reception of new packets from
the peer does not guarantee the peer's reachability and, if the
destination address becomes unreachable during zero window probing,
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
SCTP cannot get an updated rwnd until it switches the destination
address for probes.
3.20.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
If the sender continues to receive new packets from the receiver
while doing zero window probing, the unacknowledged window probes
should not increment the error counter for the association or any
destination transport address. This is because the receiver MAY
keep its window closed for an indefinite time. Refer to Section
6.2 on the receiver behavior when it advertises a zero window.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
If the sender continues to receive SACKs from the peer
while doing zero window probing, the unacknowledged window probes
SHOULD NOT increment the error counter for the association or any
destination transport address. This is because the receiver could
keep its window closed for an indefinite time. Section 6.2 describes
the receiver behavior when it advertises a zero window.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.20.3. Solution Description
The new text clarifies that if the receiver continues to send SACKs,
the sender of probes should not increment the error counter of the
association and the destination address even if the SACKs do not
acknowledge the probes.
3.21. Normative Language in Section 10
3.21.1. Description of the Problem
Section 10 of [RFC4960] is informative and, therefore, normative
language such as MUST and MAY cannot be used there. However, there
are several places in Section 10 where MUST and MAY are used.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.21.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 E))
---------
o no-bundle flag - instructs SCTP not to bundle this user data with
other outbound DATA chunks. SCTP MAY still bundle even when this
flag is present, when faced with network congestion.
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 E))
---------
o no-bundle flag - instructs SCTP not to bundle this user data with
other outbound DATA chunks. SCTP may still bundle even when this
flag is present, when faced with network congestion.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 G))
---------
o Stream Sequence Number - the Stream Sequence Number assigned by
the sending SCTP peer.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
Receive contains a partial delivery of the whole message. When
this flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
Number.
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 G))
---------
o stream sequence number - the Stream Sequence Number assigned by
the sending SCTP peer.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
primitive contains a partial delivery of the whole message. When
this flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
accompany this primitive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence
number.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 N))
---------
o Stream Sequence Number - this value is returned indicating the
Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When this
flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
Number.
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 N))
---------
o stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating the
Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When this
flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
accompany this primitive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence
number.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 O))
---------
o Stream Sequence Number - this value is returned indicating the
Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When this
flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
accompany this receive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
Number.
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 O))
---------
o stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating the
Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.
o partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
message is a partial delivery of the whole message. When this
flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
accompany this primitive. When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
that no more deliveries will be received for this stream sequence
number.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.21.3. Solution Description
The normative language is removed from Section 10. In addition, the
consistency of the text has been improved.
3.22. Increase of partial_bytes_acked in Congestion Avoidance
3.22.1. Description of the Problem
Two issues have been discovered with the partial_bytes_acked handling
described in Section 7.2.2 of [RFC4960]:
o If the Cumulative TSN Ack Point is not advanced but the SACK chunk
acknowledges new TSNs in the Gap Ack Blocks, these newly
acknowledged TSNs are not considered for partial_bytes_acked
although these TSNs were successfully received by the peer.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
o Duplicate TSNs are not considered in partial_bytes_acked although
they confirm that the DATA chunks were successfully received by
the peer.
3.22.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival
that advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, increase
partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all new chunks
acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged by the new
Cumulative TSN Ack and by Gap Ack Blocks.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival,
increase partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all
new chunks acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged
by the new Cumulative TSN Ack, by Gap Ack Blocks and by the number
of bytes of duplicated chunks reported in Duplicate TSNs.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.26.
3.22.3. Solution Description
Now partial_bytes_acked is increased by TSNs reported as duplicated
as well as TSNs newly acknowledged in Gap Ack Blocks even if the
Cumulative TSN Ack Point is not advanced.
3.23. Inconsistency in Notifications Handling
3.23.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] uses inconsistent normative and non-normative language when
describing rules for sending notifications to the upper layer. E.g.
Section 8.2 of [RFC4960] says that when a destination address becomes
inactive due to an unacknowledged DATA chunk or HEARTBEAT chunk, SCTP
SHOULD send a notification to the upper layer while Section 8.3 of
[RFC4960] says that when a destination address becomes inactive due
to an unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunk, SCTP may send a notification to
the upper layer.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This makes the text inconsistent.
3.23.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 8.1)
---------
An endpoint shall keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
retransmissions to its peer (this includes retransmissions to all the
destination transport addresses of the peer if it is multi-homed),
including unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks.
---------
New text: (Section 8.1)
---------
An endpoint SHOULD keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
retransmissions to its peer (this includes data retransmissions
to all the destination transport addresses of the peer if it is
multi-homed), including the number of unacknowledged HEARTBEAT
chunks observed on the path which currently is used for data
transfer. Unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks observed on paths
different from the path currently used for data transfer SHOULD
NOT increment the association error counter, as this could lead
to association closure even if the path which currently is used for
data transfer is available (but idle). If the value of this
counter exceeds the limit indicated in the protocol parameter
'Association.Max.Retrans', the endpoint SHOULD consider the peer
endpoint unreachable and SHALL stop transmitting any more data to it
(and thus the association enters the CLOSED state). In addition, the
endpoint SHOULD report the failure to the upper layer and optionally
report back all outstanding user data remaining in its outbound
queue. The association is automatically closed when the peer
endpoint becomes unreachable.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.6. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.2)
---------
When an outstanding TSN is acknowledged or a HEARTBEAT sent to that
address is acknowledged with a HEARTBEAT ACK, the endpoint shall
clear the error counter of the destination transport address to which
the DATA chunk was last sent (or HEARTBEAT was sent). When the peer
endpoint is multi-homed and the last chunk sent to it was a
retransmission to an alternate address, there exists an ambiguity as
to whether or not the acknowledgement should be credited to the
address of the last chunk sent. However, this ambiguity does not
seem to bear any significant consequence to SCTP behavior. If this
ambiguity is undesirable, the transmitter may choose not to clear the
error counter if the last chunk sent was a retransmission.
---------
New text: (Section 8.2)
---------
When an outstanding TSN is acknowledged or a HEARTBEAT sent to that
address is acknowledged with a HEARTBEAT ACK, the endpoint SHOULD
clear the error counter of the destination transport address to which
the DATA chunk was last sent (or HEARTBEAT was sent), and SHOULD
also report to the upper layer when an inactive destination address
is marked as active. When the peer endpoint is multi-homed and the
last chunk sent to it was a retransmission to an alternate address,
there exists an ambiguity as to whether or not the acknowledgement
could be credited to the address of the last chunk sent. However,
this ambiguity does not seem to bear any significant consequence to
SCTP behavior. If this ambiguity is undesirable, the transmitter MAY
choose not to clear the error counter if the last chunk sent was a
retransmission.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.3)
---------
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 also
optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
this destination address. After this, the endpoint should continue
HEARTBEAT on this destination address but should stop increasing the
counter.
---------
New text: (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 SHOULD
also report to the upper layer the change of reachability of this
destination address. After this, the endpoint SHOULD continue
HEARTBEAT on this destination address but SHOULD stop increasing the
counter.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.1. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 8.3)
---------
Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
should clear the error counter of the destination transport address
to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
address as active if it is not so marked. The endpoint may
optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
HEARTBEAT ACK. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK must also clear the
association overall error count as well (as defined in Section 8.1).
---------
New text: (Section 8.3)
---------
Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
SHOULD clear the error counter of the destination transport address
to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
address as active if it is not so marked. The endpoint SHOULD
report to the upper layer when an inactive destination address
is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
HEARTBEAT ACK. The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK SHOULD also clear
the association overall error counter (as defined in Section 8.1).
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.13. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 9.2)
---------
An endpoint should limit the number of retransmissions of the
SHUTDOWN chunk to the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans'.
If this threshold is exceeded, the endpoint should destroy the TCB
and MUST report the peer endpoint unreachable to the upper layer (and
thus the association enters the CLOSED state).
---------
New text: (Section 9.2)
---------
An endpoint SHOULD limit the number of retransmissions of the
SHUTDOWN chunk to the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans'.
If this threshold is exceeded, the endpoint SHOULD destroy the TCB
and SHOULD report the peer endpoint unreachable to the upper layer
(and thus the association enters the CLOSED state).
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 9.2)
---------
The sender of the SHUTDOWN ACK should limit the number of
retransmissions of the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk to the protocol parameter
'Association.Max.Retrans'. If this threshold is exceeded, the
endpoint should destroy the TCB and may report the peer endpoint
unreachable to the upper layer (and thus the association enters the
CLOSED state).
---------
New text: (Section 9.2)
---------
The sender of the SHUTDOWN ACK SHOULD limit the number of
retransmissions of the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk to the protocol parameter
'Association.Max.Retrans'. If this threshold is exceeded, the
endpoint SHOULD destroy the TCB and SHOULD report the peer endpoint
unreachable to the upper layer (and thus the association enters the
CLOSED state).
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.23.3. Solution Description
The inconsistencies are removed by using consistently SHOULD.
3.24. SACK.Delay Not Listed as a Protocol Parameter
3.24.1. Description of the Problem
SCTP as specified in [RFC4960] supports delaying SACKs. The timer
value for this is a parameter and Section 6.2 of [RFC4960] specifies
a default and maximum value for it. However, defining a name for
this parameter and listing it in the table of protocol parameters in
Section 15 of [RFC4960] is missing.
This issue was reported as an Errata for [RFC4960] with Errata ID
4656.
3.24.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.2)
---------
An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay to be configured
to be more than 500 ms. In other words, an implementation MAY lower
this value below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms.
---------
New text: (Section 6.2)
---------
An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay (protocol
parameter 'SACK.Delay') to be configured to be more than 500 ms.
In other words, an implementation MAY lower the value of
SACK.Delay below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 15)
---------
The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:
RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
RTO.Min - 1 second
RTO.Max - 60 seconds
Max.Burst - 4
RTO.Alpha - 1/8
RTO.Beta - 1/4
Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds
Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts
Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address)
Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts
HB.interval - 30 seconds
HB.Max.Burst - 1
---------
New text: (Section 15)
---------
The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:
RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
RTO.Min - 1 second
RTO.Max - 60 seconds
Max.Burst - 4
RTO.Alpha - 1/8
RTO.Beta - 1/4
Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds
Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts
Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address)
Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts
HB.interval - 30 seconds
HB.Max.Burst - 1
SACK.Delay - 200 milliseconds
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.32.
3.24.3. Solution Description
The parameter was given a name and added to the list of protocol
parameters.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.25. Processing of Chunks in an Incoming SCTP Packet
3.25.1. Description of the Problem
There are a few places in [RFC4960] where the receiver of a packet
must discard it while processing the chunks of the packet. It is
unclear whether the receiver has to rollback state changes already
performed while processing the packet or not.
The intention of [RFC4960] is to process an incoming packet chunk by
chunk and not to perform any prescreening of chunks in the received
packet. Thus, by discarding one chunk the receiver also causes
discarding of all further chunks.
3.25.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 3.2)
---------
00 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not
process any further chunks within it.
01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not
process any further chunks within it, and report the
unrecognized chunk in an 'Unrecognized Chunk Type'.
---------
New text: (Section 3.2)
---------
00 - Stop processing this SCTP packet, discard the unrecognized
chunk and all further chunks.
01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet, discard the unrecognized
chunk and all further chunks, and report the unrecognized
chunk in an 'Unrecognized Chunk Type'.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 11.3)
---------
It is helpful for some firewalls if they can inspect just the first
fragment of a fragmented SCTP packet and unambiguously determine
whether it corresponds to an INIT chunk (for further information,
please refer to [RFC1858]). Accordingly, we stress the requirements,
stated in Section 3.1, that (1) an INIT chunk MUST NOT be bundled
with any other chunk in a packet, and (2) a packet containing an INIT
chunk MUST have a zero Verification Tag. Furthermore, we require
that the receiver of an INIT chunk MUST enforce these rules by
silently discarding an arriving packet with an INIT chunk that is
bundled with other chunks or has a non-zero verification tag and
contains an INIT-chunk.
---------
New text: (Section 11.3)
---------
It is helpful for some firewalls if they can inspect just the first
fragment of a fragmented SCTP packet and unambiguously determine
whether it corresponds to an INIT chunk (for further information,
please refer to [RFC1858]). Accordingly, we stress the requirements,
stated in Section 3.1, that (1) an INIT chunk MUST NOT be bundled
with any other chunk in a packet, and (2) a packet containing an INIT
chunk MUST have a zero Verification Tag.
The receiver of an INIT chunk MUST silently discard the INIT chunk and
all further chunks if the INIT chunk is bundled with other chunks or
the packet has a non-zero verification tag.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.25.3. Solution Description
The new text makes it clear that chunks can be processed from the
beginning to the end and no rollback or pre-screening is required.
3.26. CWND Increase in Congestion Avoidance Phase
3.26.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] in Section 7.2.2 prescribes to increase cwnd by 1*MTU per
RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data outstanding to the
corresponding address in the Congestion Avoidance phase. However,
this is described without normative language. Moreover,
Section 7.2.2 includes an algorithm how an implementation can achieve
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
this but this algorithm is underspecified and actually allows
increasing cwnd by more than 1*MTU per RTT.
3.26.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
When cwnd is greater than ssthresh, cwnd should be incremented by
1*MTU per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data
outstanding for the corresponding transport address.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
When cwnd is greater than ssthresh, cwnd SHOULD be incremented by
1*MTU per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data
outstanding for the corresponding transport address. The basic
guidelines for incrementing cwnd during congestion avoidance are:
o SCTP MAY increment cwnd by 1*MTU.
o SCTP SHOULD increment cwnd by one 1*MTU once per RTT when
the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data outstanding for
the corresponding transport address.
o SCTP MUST NOT increment cwnd by more than 1*MTU per RTT.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival
that advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, increase
partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all new chunks
acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged by the new
Cumulative TSN Ack and by Gap Ack Blocks.
o When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
was greater than or equal to cwnd), increase cwnd by MTU, and
reset partial_bytes_acked to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.2)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival,
increase partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all
new chunks acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged
by the new Cumulative TSN Ack, by Gap Ack Blocks and by the number
of bytes of duplicated chunks reported in Duplicate TSNs.
o When partial_bytes_acked is greater than cwnd and before the
arrival of the SACK the sender had less than cwnd bytes of data
outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize was less
than cwnd), reset partial_bytes_acked to cwnd.
o When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
was greater than or equal to cwnd), partial_bytes_acked is reset
to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd). Next, cwnd is increased by 1*MTU.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.12 and Section 3.22. It is in final
form, and is not further updated in this document.
3.26.3. Solution Description
The basic guidelines for incrementing cwnd during the congestion
avoidance phase are added into Section 7.2.2. The guidelines include
the normative language and are aligned with [RFC5681].
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
The algorithm from Section 7.2.2 is improved to not allow increasing
cwnd by more than 1*MTU per RTT.
3.27. Refresh of cwnd and ssthresh after Idle Period
3.27.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] prescribes to adjust cwnd per RTO if the endpoint does not
transmit data on a given transport address. In addition to that, it
prescribes to set cwnd to the initial value after a sufficiently long
idle period. The latter is excessive. Moreover, it is unclear what
is a sufficiently long idle period.
[RFC4960] doesn't specify the handling of ssthresh in the idle case.
If ssthresh is reduced due to a packet loss, ssthresh is never
recovered. So traffic can end up in Congestion Avoidance all the
time, resulting in a low sending rate and bad performance. The
problem is even more serious for SCTP because in a multi-homed SCTP
association traffic that switches back to the previously failed
primary path will also lead to the situation where traffic ends up in
Congestion Avoidance.
3.27.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial cwnd before DATA transmission or after a sufficiently
long idle period MUST be set to min(4*MTU, max (2*MTU, 4380
bytes)).
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o The initial cwnd before DATA transmission MUST be set to
min(4*MTU, max (2*MTU, 4380 bytes)).
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o When the endpoint does not transmit data on a given transport
address, the cwnd of the transport address should be adjusted to
max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU) per RTO.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o While the endpoint does not transmit data on a given transport
address, the cwnd of the transport address SHOULD be adjusted to
max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU) once per RTO. Before the first cwnd adjustment,
the ssthresh of the transport address SHOULD be set to the cwnd.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.27.3. Solution Description
A rule about cwnd adjustment after a sufficiently long idle period is
removed.
The text is updated to describe the ssthresh handling. When the idle
period is detected, the cwnd value is stored to the ssthresh value.
3.28. Window Updates After Receiver Window Opens Up
3.28.1. Description of the Problem
The sending of SACK chunks for window updates is only indirectly
referenced in [RFC4960], Section 6.2, where it is stated that an SCTP
receiver must not generate more than one SACK for every incoming
packet, other than to update the offered window.
However, the sending of window updates when the receiver window opens
up is necessary to avoid performance problems.
3.28.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.2)
---------
An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every
incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the
receiving application consumes new data.
---------
New text: (Section 6.2)
---------
An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every
incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the
receiving application consumes new data. When the window opens
up, an SCTP receiver SHOULD send additional SACK chunks to update
the window even if no new data is received.
The receiver MUST avoid sending a large number of window updates,
in particular large bursts of them.
One way to achieve this is to send a window update only if the
window can be increased by at least a quarter of the receive
buffer size of the association.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.28.3. Solution Description
The new text makes clear that additional SACK chunks for window
updates should be sent as long as excessive bursts are avoided.
3.29. Path of DATA and Reply Chunks
3.29.1. Description of the Problem
Section 6.4 of [RFC4960] describes the transmission policy for multi-
homed SCTP endpoints. However, there are the following issues with
it:
o It states that a SACK should be sent to the source address of an
incoming DATA. However, it is known that other SACK policies
(e.g. sending SACKs always to the primary path) may be more
beneficial in some situations.
o Initially it states that an endpoint should always transmit DATA
chunks to the primary path. Then it states that the rule for
transmittal of reply chunks should also be followed if the
endpoint is bundling DATA chunks together with the reply chunk
which contradicts with the first statement to always transmit DATA
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
chunks to the primary path. Some implementations were having
problems with it and sent DATA chunks bundled with reply chunks to
a different destination address than the primary path that caused
many gaps.
3.29.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.4)
---------
An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., SACK, HEARTBEAT ACK,
etc.) to the same destination transport address from which it
received the DATA or control chunk to which it is replying. This
rule should also be followed if the endpoint is bundling DATA chunks
together with the reply chunk.
However, when acknowledging multiple DATA chunks received in packets
from different source addresses in a single SACK, the SACK chunk may
be transmitted to one of the destination transport addresses from
which the DATA or control chunks being acknowledged were received.
---------
New text: (Section 6.4)
---------
An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., INIT ACK, COOKIE ACK,
HEARTBEAT ACK, etc.) in response to control chunks to the same
destination transport address from which it received the control
chunk to which it is replying.
The selection of the destination transport address for packets
containing SACK chunks is implementation dependent. However, an endpoint
SHOULD NOT vary the destination transport address of a SACK when it
receives DATA chunks coming from the same source address.
When acknowledging multiple DATA chunks received in packets
from different source addresses in a single SACK, the SACK chunk MAY
be transmitted to one of the destination transport addresses from
which the DATA or control chunks being acknowledged were received.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.29.3. Solution Description
The SACK transmission policy is left implementation dependent but it
is specified to not vary the destination address of a packet
containing a SACK chunk unless there are reasons for it as it may
negatively impact RTT measurement.
A confusing statement that prescribes to follow the rule for
transmittal of reply chunks when the endpoint is bundling DATA chunks
together with the reply chunk is removed.
3.30. Outstanding Data, Flightsize and Data In Flight Key Terms
3.30.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] uses outstanding data, flightsize and data in flight key
terms in formulas and statements but their definitions are not
provided in Section 1.3. Furthermore, outstanding data does not
include DATA chunks which are classified as lost but which have not
been retransmitted yet and there is a paragraph in Section 6.1 of
[RFC4960] where this statement is broken.
3.30.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 1.3)
---------
o Congestion window (cwnd): An SCTP variable that limits the data,
in number of bytes, a sender can send to a particular destination
transport address before receiving an acknowledgement.
...
o Outstanding TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated
DATA chunk) that has been sent by the endpoint but for which it
has not yet received an acknowledgement.
---------
New text: (Section 1.3)
---------
o Outstanding TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated
DATA chunk) that has been sent by the endpoint but for which it
has not yet received an acknowledgement.
o Outstanding data (or Data outstanding or Data in flight): The
total amount of the DATA chunks associated with outstanding TSNs.
A retransmitted DATA chunk is counted once in outstanding data.
A DATA chunk which is classified as lost but which has not been
retransmitted yet is not in outstanding data.
o Flightsize: The amount of bytes of outstanding data to a
particular destination transport address at any given time.
o Congestion window (cwnd): An SCTP variable that limits outstanding
data, in number of bytes, a sender can send to a particular
destination transport address before receiving an acknowledgement.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
C) When the time comes for the sender to transmit, before sending new
DATA chunks, the sender MUST first transmit any outstanding DATA
chunks that are marked for retransmission (limited by the current
cwnd).
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
C) When the time comes for the sender to transmit, before sending new
DATA chunks, the sender MUST first transmit any DATA chunks that
are marked for retransmission (limited by the current cwnd).
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.30.3. Solution Description
Now Section 1.3, Key Terms, includes explanations of outstanding
data, data in flight and flightsize key terms. Section 6.1 is
corrected to properly use the outstanding data term.
3.31. CWND Degradation due to Max.Burst
3.31.1. Description of the Problem
Some implementations were experiencing a degradation of cwnd because
of the Max.Burst limit. This was due to misinterpretation of the
suggestion in [RFC4960], Section 6.1, on how to use the Max.Burst
parameter when calculating the number of packets to transmit.
3.31.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
D) When the time comes for the sender to transmit new DATA chunks,
the protocol parameter Max.Burst SHOULD be used to limit the
number of packets sent. The limit MAY be applied by adjusting
cwnd as follows:
if((flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU) < cwnd) cwnd = flightsize +
Max.Burst*MTU
Or it MAY be applied by strictly limiting the number of packets
emitted by the output routine.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
D) When the time comes for the sender to transmit new DATA chunks,
the protocol parameter Max.Burst SHOULD be used to limit the
number of packets sent. The limit MAY be applied by adjusting
cwnd temporarily as follows:
if ((flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU) < cwnd)
cwnd = flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU
Or it MAY be applied by strictly limiting the number of packets
emitted by the output routine. When calculating the number of
packets to transmit and particularly using the formula above,
cwnd SHOULD NOT be changed permanently.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.31.3. Solution Description
The new text clarifies that cwnd should not be changed when applying
the Max.Burst limit. This mitigates packet bursts related to the
reception of SACK chunks, but not bursts related to an application
sending a burst of user messages.
3.32. Reduction of RTO.Initial
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.32.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] uses 3 seconds as the default value for RTO.Initial in
accordance with Section 4.3.2.1 of [RFC1122]. [RFC6298] updates
[RFC1122] and lowers the initial value of the retransmission timer
from 3 seconds to 1 second.
3.32.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 15)
---------
The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:
RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
RTO.Min - 1 second
RTO.Max - 60 seconds
Max.Burst - 4
RTO.Alpha - 1/8
RTO.Beta - 1/4
Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds
Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts
Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address)
Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts
HB.interval - 30 seconds
HB.Max.Burst - 1
---------
New text: (Section 15)
---------
The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:
RTO.Initial - 1 second
RTO.Min - 1 second
RTO.Max - 60 seconds
Max.Burst - 4
RTO.Alpha - 1/8
RTO.Beta - 1/4
Valid.Cookie.Life - 60 seconds
Association.Max.Retrans - 10 attempts
Path.Max.Retrans - 5 attempts (per destination address)
Max.Init.Retransmits - 8 attempts
HB.interval - 30 seconds
HB.Max.Burst - 1
SACK.Delay - 200 milliseconds
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.24. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
3.32.3. Solution Description
The value RTO.Initial has been lowered to 1 second to be in tune with
[RFC6298].
3.33. Ordering of Bundled SACK and ERROR Chunks
3.33.1. Description of the Problem
When an SCTP endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream
identifier it shall acknowledge it by sending a SACK chunk and
indicate that the stream identifier was invalid by sending an ERROR
chunk. These two chunks may be bundled. However, [RFC4960] requires
in case of bundling that the ERROR chunk follows the SACK chunk.
This restriction of the ordering is not necessary and might only
limit interoperability.
3.33.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.5)
---------
Every DATA chunk MUST carry a valid stream identifier. If an
endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream identifier, it
shall acknowledge the reception of the DATA chunk following the
normal procedure, immediately send an ERROR chunk with cause set to
"Invalid Stream Identifier" (see Section 3.3.10), and discard the
DATA chunk. The endpoint may bundle the ERROR chunk in the same
packet as the SACK as long as the ERROR follows the SACK.
---------
New text: (Section 6.5)
---------
Every DATA chunk MUST carry a valid stream identifier. If an
endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream identifier, it
SHOULD acknowledge the reception of the DATA chunk following the
normal procedure, immediately send an ERROR chunk with cause set to
"Invalid Stream Identifier" (see Section 3.3.10), and discard the
DATA chunk. The endpoint MAY bundle the ERROR chunk and the SACK Chunk
in the same packet.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.33.3. Solution Description
The unnecessary restriction regarding the ordering of the SACK and
ERROR chunk has been removed.
3.34. Undefined Parameter Returned by RECEIVE Primitive
3.34.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] provides a description of an abstract API. In the
definition of the RECEIVE primitive an optional parameter with name
"delivery number" is mentioned. However, no definition of this
parameter is given in [RFC4960] and the parameter is unnecessary.
3.34.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 G))
---------
G) Receive
Format: RECEIVE(association id, buffer address, buffer size
[,stream id])
-> byte count [,transport address] [,stream id] [,stream sequence
number] [,partial flag] [,delivery number] [,payload protocol-id]
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 G))
---------
G) Receive
Format: RECEIVE(association id, buffer address, buffer size
[,stream id])
-> byte count [,transport address] [,stream id] [,stream sequence
number] [,partial flag] [,payload protocol-id]
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.34.3. Solution Description
The undefined parameter has been removed.
3.35. DSCP Changes
3.35.1. Description of the Problem
The upper layer can change the Differentiated Services Code Point
(DSCP) used for packets being sent. A change of the DSCP can result
in packets hitting different queues on the path and, therefore, the
congestion control should be initialized when the DSCP is changed by
the upper layer. This is not described in [RFC4960].
3.35.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.5)
---------
7.2.5. Change of Differentiated Services Code Points
SCTP implementations MAY allow an application to configure the
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) used for sending packets.
If a DSCP change might result in outgoing packets being queued in
different queues, the congestion control parameters for all affected
destination addresses MUST be reset to their initial values.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 M))
---------
Mandatory attributes:
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association.
o protocol parameter list - the specific names and values of the
protocol parameters (e.g., Association.Max.Retrans; see Section
15) that the SCTP user wishes to customize.
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 M))
---------
Mandatory attributes:
o association id - local handle to the SCTP association.
o protocol parameter list - the specific names and values of the
protocol parameters (e.g., Association.Max.Retrans; see Section
15, or other parameters like the DSCP) that the SCTP user wishes
to customize.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.35.3. Solution Description
Text describing the required action on DSCP changes has been added.
3.36. Inconsistent Handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 Messages
3.36.1. Description of the Problem
Appendix C of [RFC4960] describes the handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6
messages. The handling of ICMP messages indicating that the port
number is unreachable described in the enumeration is not consistent
with the description given in [RFC4960] after the enumeration.
Furthermore, the text explicitly describes the handling of ICMPv6
packets indicating reachability problems, but does not do the same
for the corresponding ICMPv4 packets.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.36.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP3) An implementation MAY ignore any ICMPv4 messages where the
code does not indicate "Protocol Unreachable" or
"Fragmentation Needed".
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP3) An implementation SHOULD ignore any ICMP messages where the
code indicates "Port Unreachable".
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP9) If the ICMPv6 code is "Destination Unreachable", the
implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
state or alternatively increment the path error counter.
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP9) If the ICMP type is "Destination Unreachable", the
implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
state or alternatively increment the path error counter.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It is further
updated in Section 3.37.
3.36.3. Solution Description
The text has been changed to describe the intended handling of ICMP
messages indicating that the port number is unreachable by replacing
the third rule. Furthermore, remove the limitation to ICMPv6 in the
ninth rule.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.37. Handling of Soft Errors
3.37.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC1122] defines the handling of soft errors and hard errors for
TCP. Appendix C of [RFC4960] only deals with hard errors.
3.37.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP9) If the ICMPv6 code is "Destination Unreachable", the
implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
state or alternatively increment the path error counter.
---------
New text: (Appendix C)
---------
ICMP9) If the ICMP type is "Destination Unreachable", the
implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
state or alternatively increment the path error counter.
SCTP MAY provide information to the upper layer indicating
the reception of ICMP messages when reporting a network status
change.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.36. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
3.37.3. Solution Description
Text has been added allowing SCTP to notify the application in case
of soft errors.
3.38. Honoring CWND
3.38.1. Description of the Problem
When using the slow start algorithm, SCTP increases the congestion
window only when it is being fully utilized. Since SCTP uses DATA
chunks and does not use the congestion window to fragment user
messages, this requires that some overbooking of the congestion
window is allowed.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.38.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a
given transport address if it has cwnd or more bytes of data
outstanding to that transport address.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a
given transport address if it has cwnd + (PMTU - 1) or more bytes
of data outstanding to that transport address. If data is
available the sender SHOULD exceed cwnd by up to (PMTU-1) bytes on
a new data transmission if the flightsize does not currently reach
cwnd. The breach of cwnd MUST constitute one packet only.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than zero, the endpoint is allowed to
have cwnd bytes of data outstanding on that transport address.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.1)
---------
o Whenever cwnd is greater than zero, the endpoint is allowed to
have cwnd bytes of data outstanding on that transport address.
A limited overbooking as described in B) of Section 6.1 SHOULD
be supported.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.38.3. Solution Description
Text was added to clarify how the cwnd limit should be handled.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.39. Zero Window Probing
3.39.1. Description of the Problem
The text describing zero window probing was not clearly handling the
case where the window was not zero, but too small for the next DATA
chunk to be transmitted. Even in this case, zero window probing has
to be performed to avoid deadlocks.
3.39.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
A) At any given time, the data sender MUST NOT transmit new data to
any destination transport address if its peer's rwnd indicates
that the peer has no buffer space (i.e., rwnd is 0; see Section
6.2.1). However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it
is 0), the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to
the receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B, below). This rule
allows the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender
missed due to the SACK's having been lost in transit from the data
receiver to the data sender.
When the receiver's advertised window is zero, this probe is
called a zero window probe. Note that a zero window probe SHOULD
only be sent when all outstanding DATA chunks have been
cumulatively acknowledged and no DATA chunks are in flight. Zero
window probing MUST be supported.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
A) At any given time, the data sender MUST NOT transmit new data to
any destination transport address if its peer's rwnd indicates
that the peer has no buffer space (i.e., rwnd is smaller than the
size of the next DATA chunk; see Section 6.2.1).
However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it is 0),
the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to
the receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B, below). This rule
allows the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender
missed due to the SACK's having been lost in transit from the data
receiver to the data sender.
When the receiver has no buffer space, this probe is
called a zero window probe. Note that a zero window probe SHOULD
only be sent when all outstanding DATA chunks have been
cumulatively acknowledged and no DATA chunks are in flight. Zero
window probing MUST be supported.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.39.3. Solution Description
The terminology is used in a cleaner way.
3.40. Updating References Regarding ECN
3.40.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] refers for ECN only to [RFC3168], which will be updated by
[RFC8311]. This needs to be reflected when referring to ECN.
3.40.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Appendix A)
---------
ECN [RFC3168] describes a proposed extension to IP that details a
method to become aware of congestion outside of datagram loss.
---------
New text: (Appendix A)
---------
ECN as specified in [RFC3168] updated by [RFC8311] describes an
extension to IP that details a method to become aware of congestion
outside of datagram loss.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix A)
---------
In general, [RFC3168] should be followed with the following
exceptions.
---------
New text: (Appendix A)
---------
In general, [RFC3168] updated by [RFC8311] SHOULD be followed with the
following exceptions.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] details negotiation of ECN during the SYN and SYN-ACK
stages of a TCP connection.
---------
New text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] updated by [RFC8311] details negotiation of ECN during the
SYN and SYN-ACK stages of a TCP connection.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] details a specific bit for a receiver to send back in its
TCP acknowledgements to notify the sender of the Congestion
Experienced (CE) bit having arrived from the network.
---------
New text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] updated by [RFC8311] details a specific bit for a receiver
to send back in its TCP acknowledgements to notify the sender of the
Congestion Experienced (CE) bit having arrived from the network.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] details a specific bit for a sender to send in the header
of its next outbound TCP segment to indicate to its peer that it has
reduced its congestion window.
---------
New text: (Appendix A)
---------
[RFC3168] updated by [RFC8311] details a specific bit for a sender
to send in the header of its next outbound TCP segment to indicate to
its peer that it has reduced its congestion window.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.40.3. Solution Description
References to [RFC8311] have been added. While there, some
wordsmithing has been performed.
3.41. Host Name Address Parameter Deprecated
3.41.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC4960] defines three types of address parameters to be used with
INIT and INIT ACK chunks:
1. IPv4 Address parameters.
2. IPv6 Address parameters.
3. Host Name Address parameters.
The first two are supported by the SCTP kernel implementations of
FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris, but the third one is not. In addition,
the first two where successfully tested in all nine interoperability
tests for SCTP, but the third one has never been successfully tested.
Therefore, the Host Name Address parameter should be deprecated.
3.41.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.2)
---------
Note 3: An INIT chunk MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name
Address parameter. Moreover, the sender of the INIT MUST NOT combine
any other address types with the Host Name Address in the INIT. The
receiver of INIT MUST ignore any other address types if the Host Name
Address parameter is present in the received INIT chunk.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.2)
---------
Note 3: An INIT chunk MUST NOT contain the Host Name Address
parameter. The receiver of an INIT chunk containing a Host Name
Address parameter MUST send an ABORT and MAY include an Error Cause
indicating an Unresolvable Address.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.2.1)
---------
The sender of INIT uses this parameter to pass its Host Name (in
place of its IP addresses) to its peer. The peer is responsible for
resolving the name. Using this parameter might make it more likely
for the association to work across a NAT box.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.2.1)
---------
The sender of an INIT chunk MUST NOT include this parameter. The
usage of the Host Name Address parameter is deprecated.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.2.1)
---------
Address Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
This is filled with the type value of the corresponding address
TLV (e.g., IPv4 = 5, IPv6 = 6, Host name = 11).
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.2.1)
---------
Address Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
This is filled with the type value of the corresponding address
TLV (e.g., IPv4 = 5, IPv6 = 6). The value indicating the Host
Name Address parameter (Host name = 11) MUST NOT be used.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.3)
---------
Note 3: The INIT ACK chunks MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name
Address parameter. Moreover, the sender of the INIT ACK MUST NOT
combine any other address types with the Host Name Address in the
INIT ACK. The receiver of the INIT ACK MUST ignore any other address
types if the Host Name Address parameter is present.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.3)
---------
Note 3: An INIT ACK chunk MUST NOT contain the Host Name Address
parameter. The receiver of INIT ACK chunks containing a Host Name
Address parameter MUST send an ABORT and MAY include an Error Cause
indicating an Unresolvable Address.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 5.1.2)
---------
B) If there is a Host Name parameter present in the received INIT or
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint shall resolve that host name to a
list of IP address(es) and derive the transport address(es) of
this peer by combining the resolved IP address(es) with the SCTP
source port.
The endpoint MUST ignore any other IP Address parameters if they
are also present in the received INIT or INIT ACK chunk.
The time at which the receiver of an INIT resolves the host name
has potential security implications to SCTP. If the receiver of
an INIT resolves the host name upon the reception of the chunk,
and the mechanism the receiver uses to resolve the host name
involves potential long delay (e.g., DNS query), the receiver may
open itself up to resource attacks for the period of time while it
is waiting for the name resolution results before it can build the
State Cookie and release local resources.
Therefore, in cases where the name translation involves potential
long delay, the receiver of the INIT MUST postpone the name
resolution till the reception of the COOKIE ECHO chunk from the
peer. In such a case, the receiver of the INIT SHOULD build the
State Cookie using the received Host Name (instead of destination
transport addresses) and send the INIT ACK to the source IP
address from which the INIT was received.
The receiver of an INIT ACK shall always immediately attempt to
resolve the name upon the reception of the chunk.
The receiver of the INIT or INIT ACK MUST NOT send user data
(piggy-backed or stand-alone) to its peer until the host name is
successfully resolved.
If the name resolution is not successful, the endpoint MUST
immediately send an ABORT with "Unresolvable Address" error cause
to its peer. The ABORT shall be sent to the source IP address
from which the last peer packet was received.
---------
New text: (Section 5.1.2)
---------
B) If there is a Host Name parameter present in the received INIT or
INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint MUST immediately send an ABORT and
MAY include an Error Cause indicating an Unresolvable Address to
its peer. The ABORT SHALL be sent to the source IP address
from which the last peer packet was received.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 11.2.4.1)
---------
The use of the host name feature in the INIT chunk could be used to
flood a target DNS server. A large backlog of DNS queries, resolving
the host name received in the INIT chunk to IP addresses, could be
accomplished by sending INITs to multiple hosts in a given domain.
In addition, an attacker could use the host name feature in an
indirect attack on a third party by sending large numbers of INITs to
random hosts containing the host name of the target. In addition to
the strain on DNS resources, this could also result in large numbers
of INIT ACKs being sent to the target. One method to protect against
this type of attack is to verify that the IP addresses received from
DNS include the source IP address of the original INIT. If the list
of IP addresses received from DNS does not include the source IP
address of the INIT, the endpoint MAY silently discard the INIT.
This last option will not protect against the attack against the DNS.
---------
New text: (Section 11.2.4.1)
---------
The support of the Host Name Address parameter has been removed from
the protocol. Endpoints receiving INIT or INIT ACK chunks containing
the Host Name Address parameter MUST send an ABORT chunk in response
and MAY include an Error Cause indicating an Unresolvable Address.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.41.3. Solution Description
The usage of the Host Name Address parameter has been deprecated.
3.42. Conflicting Text Regarding the Supported Address Types Parameter
3.42.1. Description of the Problem
When receiving an SCTP packet containing an INIT chunk sent from an
address for which the corresponding address type is not listed in the
Supported Address Types, there is conflicting text in Section 5.1.2
of [RFC4960]. It is stated that the association MUST be aborted and
also that the association SHOULD be established and there SHOULD NOT
be any error indication.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.42.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 5.1.2)
---------
The sender of INIT may include a 'Supported Address Types' parameter
in the INIT to indicate what types of address are acceptable. When
this parameter is present, the receiver of INIT (initiate) MUST
either use one of the address types indicated in the Supported
Address Types parameter when responding to the INIT, or abort the
association with an "Unresolvable Address" error cause if it is
unwilling or incapable of using any of the address types indicated by
its peer.
---------
New text: (Section 5.1.2)
---------
The sender of INIT chunks MAY include a 'Supported Address Types'
parameter in the INIT to indicate what types of addresses are
acceptable.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.42.3. Solution Description
The conflicting text has been removed.
3.43. Integration of RFC 6096
3.43.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC6096] updates [RFC4960] by adding a Chunk Flags Registry. This
should be integrated into the base specification.
3.43.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 14.1)
---------
14.1. IETF-Defined Chunk Extension
The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
IETF Consensus action, as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the
chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
a) A long and short name for the new chunk type.
b) A detailed description of the structure of the chunk, which MUST
conform to the basic structure defined in Section 3.2.
c) A detailed definition and description of the intended use of each
field within the chunk, including the chunk flags if any.
d) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk type
within the operation of the protocol.
The last chunk type (255) is reserved for future extension if
necessary.
---------
New text: (Section 14.1)
---------
14.1. IETF-Defined Chunk Extension
The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an IETF Review
action, as defined in [RFC8126]. Documentation of a new chunk MUST
contain the following information:
a) A long and short name for the new chunk type;
b) A detailed description of the structure of the chunk, which MUST
conform to the basic structure defined in Section 3.2 of
[RFC4960];
c) A detailed definition and description of the intended use of each
field within the chunk, including the chunk flags if any.
Defined chunk flags will be used as initial entries in the chunk
flags table for the new chunk type;
d) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk
type within the operation of the protocol.
The last chunk type (255) is reserved for future extension if
necessary.
For each new chunk type, IANA creates a registration table for the
chunk flags of that type. The procedure for registering particular
chunk flags is described in the following Section 14.2.
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.3. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
New text: (Section 14.2)
---------
14.2. New IETF Chunk Flags Registration
The assignment of new chunk flags is done through an RFC required
action, as defined in [RFC8126]. Documentation of the chunk flags
MUST contain the following information:
a) A name for the new chunk flag;
b) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk
flag within the operation of the protocol. It MUST be considered
that implementations not supporting the flag will send '0' on
transmit and just ignore it on receipt.
IANA selects a chunk flags value. This MUST be one of 0x01, 0x02,
0x04, 0x08, 0x10, 0x20, 0x40, or 0x80, which MUST be unique within
the chunk flag values for the specific chunk type.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Please note that Sections 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5 need to be
renumbered.
3.43.3. Solution Description
[RFC6096] was integrated and the reference updated to [RFC8126].
3.44. Integration of RFC 6335
3.44.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC6335] updates [RFC4960] by updating Procedures for the Port
Numbers Registry. This should be integrated into the base
specification. While there, update the reference to the RFC giving
guidelines for writing IANA sections to [RFC8126].
3.44.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 14.5)
---------
SCTP services may use contact port numbers to provide service to
unknown callers, as in TCP and UDP. IANA is therefore requested to
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
open the existing Port Numbers registry for SCTP using the following
rules, which we intend to mesh well with existing Port Numbers
registration procedures. An IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer supports
IANA in evaluating SCTP port allocation requests, according to the
procedure defined in [RFC2434].
Port numbers are divided into three ranges. The Well Known Ports are
those from 0 through 1023, the Registered Ports are those from 1024
through 49151, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from
49152 through 65535. Well Known and Registered Ports are intended
for use by server applications that desire a default contact point on
a system. On most systems, Well Known Ports can only be used by
system (or root) processes or by programs executed by privileged
users, while Registered Ports can be used by ordinary user processes
or programs executed by ordinary users. Dynamic and/or Private Ports
are intended for temporary use, including client-side ports, out-of-
band negotiated ports, and application testing prior to registration
of a dedicated port; they MUST NOT be registered.
The Port Numbers registry should accept registrations for SCTP ports
in the Well Known Ports and Registered Ports ranges. Well Known and
Registered Ports SHOULD NOT be used without registration. Although
in some cases -- such as porting an application from TCP to SCTP --
it may seem natural to use an SCTP port before registration
completes, we emphasize that IANA will not guarantee registration of
particular Well Known and Registered Ports. Registrations should be
requested as early as possible.
Each port registration SHALL include the following information:
o A short port name, consisting entirely of letters (A-Z and a-z),
digits (0-9), and punctuation characters from "-_+./*" (not
including the quotes).
o The port number that is requested for registration.
o A short English phrase describing the port's purpose.
o Name and contact information for the person or entity performing
the registration, and possibly a reference to a document defining
the port's use. Registrations coming from IETF working groups
need only name the working group, but indicating a contact person
is recommended.
Registrants are encouraged to follow these guidelines when submitting
a registration.
o A port name SHOULD NOT be registered for more than one SCTP port
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
number.
o A port name registered for TCP MAY be registered for SCTP as well.
Any such registration SHOULD use the same port number as the
existing TCP registration.
o Concrete intent to use a port SHOULD precede port registration.
For example, existing TCP ports SHOULD NOT be registered in
advance of any intent to use those ports for SCTP.
---------
New text: (Section 14.5)
---------
SCTP services can use contact port numbers to provide service to
unknown callers, as in TCP and UDP. IANA is therefore requested to
open the existing Port Numbers registry for SCTP using the following
rules, which we intend to mesh well with existing Port Numbers
registration procedures. An IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer supports
IANA in evaluating SCTP port allocation requests, according to the
procedure defined in [RFC8126]. The details of this process are
defined in [RFC6335].
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.44.3. Solution Description
[RFC6335] was integrated and the reference was updated to [RFC8126].
3.45. Integration of RFC 7053
3.45.1. Description of the Problem
[RFC7053] updates [RFC4960] by adding the I bit to the DATA chunk.
This should be integrated into the base specification.
3.45.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.1)
---------
The following format MUST be used for the DATA chunk:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
| Type = 0 | Reserved|U|B|E| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier S | Stream Sequence Number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Protocol Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ User Data (seq n of Stream S) /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 5 bits
Should be set to all '0's and ignored by the receiver.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.1)
---------
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0 | Res |I|U|B|E| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier S | Stream Sequence Number n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Protocol Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ User Data (seq n of Stream S) /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res: 4 bits
SHOULD be set to all '0's and ignored by the receiver.
I bit: 1 bit
The (I)mmediate Bit MAY be set by the sender, whenever the sender of
a DATA chunk can benefit from the corresponding SACK chunk being sent
back without delay. See [RFC7053] for a discussion about
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
New text: (Append to Section 6.1)
---------
Whenever the sender of a DATA chunk can benefit from the
corresponding SACK chunk being sent back without delay, the sender
MAY set the I bit in the DATA chunk header. Please note that why the
sender has set the I bit is irrelevant to the receiver.
Reasons for setting the I bit include, but are not limited to (see
Section 4 of [RFC7053] for the benefits):
o The application requests to set the I bit of the last DATA chunk
of a user message when providing the user message to the SCTP
implementation (see Section 7).
o The sender is in the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state.
o The sending of a DATA chunk fills the congestion or receiver
window.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 6.2)
---------
Note: The SHUTDOWN chunk does not contain Gap Ack Block fields.
Therefore, the endpoint should use a SACK instead of the SHUTDOWN
chunk to acknowledge DATA chunks received out of order.
---------
New text: (Section 6.2)
---------
Note: The SHUTDOWN chunk does not contain Gap Ack Block fields.
Therefore, the endpoint SHOULD use a SACK instead of the SHUTDOWN
chunk to acknowledge DATA chunks received out of order.
Upon receipt of an SCTP packet containing a DATA chunk with the I bit
set, the receiver SHOULD NOT delay the sending of the corresponding
SACK chunk, i.e., the receiver SHOULD immediately respond with the
corresponding SACK chunk.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
Please note that this change is only about adding a paragraph.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
Old text: (Section 10.1 E))
---------
E) Send
Format: SEND(association id, buffer address, byte count [,context]
[,stream id] [,life time] [,destination transport address]
[,unordered flag] [,no-bundle flag] [,payload protocol-id] )
-> result
---------
New text: (Section 10.1 E))
---------
E) Send
Format: SEND(association id, buffer address, byte count [,context]
[,stream id] [,life time] [,destination transport address]
[,unordered flag] [,no-bundle flag] [,payload protocol-id]
[,sack immediately] )
-> result
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
---------
New text: (Append optional parameter in Subsection E of Section 10.1)
---------
o sack immediately - set the I bit on the last DATA chunk used for
sending buffer.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.45.3. Solution Description
[RFC7053] was integrated.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.46. CRC32c Code Improvements
3.46.1. Description of the Problem
The code given for the CRC32c computations uses types like long which
may have different length on different operating systems or
processors. Therefore, the code is changed to use specific types
like uint32_t.
While there, fix also some syntax errors and a comment.
3.46.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
/*************************************************************/
/* Note Definition for Ross Williams table generator would */
/* be: TB_WIDTH=4, TB_POLLY=0x1EDC6F41, TB_REVER=TRUE */
/* For Mr. Williams direct calculation code use the settings */
/* cm_width=32, cm_poly=0x1EDC6F41, cm_init=0xFFFFFFFF, */
/* cm_refin=TRUE, cm_refot=TRUE, cm_xorort=0x00000000 */
/*************************************************************/
/* Example of the crc table file */
#ifndef __crc32cr_table_h__
#define __crc32cr_table_h__
#define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41
#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c>>8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&0xFF])
unsigned long crc_c[256] =
{
0x00000000L, 0xF26B8303L, 0xE13B70F7L, 0x1350F3F4L,
0xC79A971FL, 0x35F1141CL, 0x26A1E7E8L, 0xD4CA64EBL,
0x8AD958CFL, 0x78B2DBCCL, 0x6BE22838L, 0x9989AB3BL,
0x4D43CFD0L, 0xBF284CD3L, 0xAC78BF27L, 0x5E133C24L,
0x105EC76FL, 0xE235446CL, 0xF165B798L, 0x030E349BL,
0xD7C45070L, 0x25AFD373L, 0x36FF2087L, 0xC494A384L,
0x9A879FA0L, 0x68EC1CA3L, 0x7BBCEF57L, 0x89D76C54L,
0x5D1D08BFL, 0xAF768BBCL, 0xBC267848L, 0x4E4DFB4BL,
0x20BD8EDEL, 0xD2D60DDDL, 0xC186FE29L, 0x33ED7D2AL,
0xE72719C1L, 0x154C9AC2L, 0x061C6936L, 0xF477EA35L,
0xAA64D611L, 0x580F5512L, 0x4B5FA6E6L, 0xB93425E5L,
0x6DFE410EL, 0x9F95C20DL, 0x8CC531F9L, 0x7EAEB2FAL,
0x30E349B1L, 0xC288CAB2L, 0xD1D83946L, 0x23B3BA45L,
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
0xF779DEAEL, 0x05125DADL, 0x1642AE59L, 0xE4292D5AL,
0xBA3A117EL, 0x4851927DL, 0x5B016189L, 0xA96AE28AL,
0x7DA08661L, 0x8FCB0562L, 0x9C9BF696L, 0x6EF07595L,
0x417B1DBCL, 0xB3109EBFL, 0xA0406D4BL, 0x522BEE48L,
0x86E18AA3L, 0x748A09A0L, 0x67DAFA54L, 0x95B17957L,
0xCBA24573L, 0x39C9C670L, 0x2A993584L, 0xD8F2B687L,
0x0C38D26CL, 0xFE53516FL, 0xED03A29BL, 0x1F682198L,
0x5125DAD3L, 0xA34E59D0L, 0xB01EAA24L, 0x42752927L,
0x96BF4DCCL, 0x64D4CECFL, 0x77843D3BL, 0x85EFBE38L,
0xDBFC821CL, 0x2997011FL, 0x3AC7F2EBL, 0xC8AC71E8L,
0x1C661503L, 0xEE0D9600L, 0xFD5D65F4L, 0x0F36E6F7L,
0x61C69362L, 0x93AD1061L, 0x80FDE395L, 0x72966096L,
0xA65C047DL, 0x5437877EL, 0x4767748AL, 0xB50CF789L,
0xEB1FCBADL, 0x197448AEL, 0x0A24BB5AL, 0xF84F3859L,
0x2C855CB2L, 0xDEEEDFB1L, 0xCDBE2C45L, 0x3FD5AF46L,
0x7198540DL, 0x83F3D70EL, 0x90A324FAL, 0x62C8A7F9L,
0xB602C312L, 0x44694011L, 0x5739B3E5L, 0xA55230E6L,
0xFB410CC2L, 0x092A8FC1L, 0x1A7A7C35L, 0xE811FF36L,
0x3CDB9BDDL, 0xCEB018DEL, 0xDDE0EB2AL, 0x2F8B6829L,
0x82F63B78L, 0x709DB87BL, 0x63CD4B8FL, 0x91A6C88CL,
0x456CAC67L, 0xB7072F64L, 0xA457DC90L, 0x563C5F93L,
0x082F63B7L, 0xFA44E0B4L, 0xE9141340L, 0x1B7F9043L,
0xCFB5F4A8L, 0x3DDE77ABL, 0x2E8E845FL, 0xDCE5075CL,
0x92A8FC17L, 0x60C37F14L, 0x73938CE0L, 0x81F80FE3L,
0x55326B08L, 0xA759E80BL, 0xB4091BFFL, 0x466298FCL,
0x1871A4D8L, 0xEA1A27DBL, 0xF94AD42FL, 0x0B21572CL,
0xDFEB33C7L, 0x2D80B0C4L, 0x3ED04330L, 0xCCBBC033L,
0xA24BB5A6L, 0x502036A5L, 0x4370C551L, 0xB11B4652L,
0x65D122B9L, 0x97BAA1BAL, 0x84EA524EL, 0x7681D14DL,
0x2892ED69L, 0xDAF96E6AL, 0xC9A99D9EL, 0x3BC21E9DL,
0xEF087A76L, 0x1D63F975L, 0x0E330A81L, 0xFC588982L,
0xB21572C9L, 0x407EF1CAL, 0x532E023EL, 0xA145813DL,
0x758FE5D6L, 0x87E466D5L, 0x94B49521L, 0x66DF1622L,
0x38CC2A06L, 0xCAA7A905L, 0xD9F75AF1L, 0x2B9CD9F2L,
0xFF56BD19L, 0x0D3D3E1AL, 0x1E6DCDEEL, 0xEC064EEDL,
0xC38D26C4L, 0x31E6A5C7L, 0x22B65633L, 0xD0DDD530L,
0x0417B1DBL, 0xF67C32D8L, 0xE52CC12CL, 0x1747422FL,
0x49547E0BL, 0xBB3FFD08L, 0xA86F0EFCL, 0x5A048DFFL,
0x8ECEE914L, 0x7CA56A17L, 0x6FF599E3L, 0x9D9E1AE0L,
0xD3D3E1ABL, 0x21B862A8L, 0x32E8915CL, 0xC083125FL,
0x144976B4L, 0xE622F5B7L, 0xF5720643L, 0x07198540L,
0x590AB964L, 0xAB613A67L, 0xB831C993L, 0x4A5A4A90L,
0x9E902E7BL, 0x6CFBAD78L, 0x7FAB5E8CL, 0x8DC0DD8FL,
0xE330A81AL, 0x115B2B19L, 0x020BD8EDL, 0xF0605BEEL,
0x24AA3F05L, 0xD6C1BC06L, 0xC5914FF2L, 0x37FACCF1L,
0x69E9F0D5L, 0x9B8273D6L, 0x88D28022L, 0x7AB90321L,
0xAE7367CAL, 0x5C18E4C9L, 0x4F48173DL, 0xBD23943EL,
0xF36E6F75L, 0x0105EC76L, 0x12551F82L, 0xE03E9C81L,
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
0x34F4F86AL, 0xC69F7B69L, 0xD5CF889DL, 0x27A40B9EL,
0x79B737BAL, 0x8BDCB4B9L, 0x988C474DL, 0x6AE7C44EL,
0xBE2DA0A5L, 0x4C4623A6L, 0x5F16D052L, 0xAD7D5351L,
};
#endif
---------
New text: (Appendix B)
---------
<CODE BEGINS>
/*************************************************************/
/* Note Definition for Ross Williams table generator would */
/* be: TB_WIDTH=4, TB_POLLY=0x1EDC6F41, TB_REVER=TRUE */
/* For Mr. Williams direct calculation code use the settings */
/* cm_width=32, cm_poly=0x1EDC6F41, cm_init=0xFFFFFFFF, */
/* cm_refin=TRUE, cm_refot=TRUE, cm_xorort=0x00000000 */
/*************************************************************/
/* Example of the crc table file */
#ifndef __crc32cr_h__
#define __crc32cr_h__
#define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41UL
#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c>>8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&0xFF])
uint32_t crc_c[256] =
{
0x00000000UL, 0xF26B8303UL, 0xE13B70F7UL, 0x1350F3F4UL,
0xC79A971FUL, 0x35F1141CUL, 0x26A1E7E8UL, 0xD4CA64EBUL,
0x8AD958CFUL, 0x78B2DBCCUL, 0x6BE22838UL, 0x9989AB3BUL,
0x4D43CFD0UL, 0xBF284CD3UL, 0xAC78BF27UL, 0x5E133C24UL,
0x105EC76FUL, 0xE235446CUL, 0xF165B798UL, 0x030E349BUL,
0xD7C45070UL, 0x25AFD373UL, 0x36FF2087UL, 0xC494A384UL,
0x9A879FA0UL, 0x68EC1CA3UL, 0x7BBCEF57UL, 0x89D76C54UL,
0x5D1D08BFUL, 0xAF768BBCUL, 0xBC267848UL, 0x4E4DFB4BUL,
0x20BD8EDEUL, 0xD2D60DDDUL, 0xC186FE29UL, 0x33ED7D2AUL,
0xE72719C1UL, 0x154C9AC2UL, 0x061C6936UL, 0xF477EA35UL,
0xAA64D611UL, 0x580F5512UL, 0x4B5FA6E6UL, 0xB93425E5UL,
0x6DFE410EUL, 0x9F95C20DUL, 0x8CC531F9UL, 0x7EAEB2FAUL,
0x30E349B1UL, 0xC288CAB2UL, 0xD1D83946UL, 0x23B3BA45UL,
0xF779DEAEUL, 0x05125DADUL, 0x1642AE59UL, 0xE4292D5AUL,
0xBA3A117EUL, 0x4851927DUL, 0x5B016189UL, 0xA96AE28AUL,
0x7DA08661UL, 0x8FCB0562UL, 0x9C9BF696UL, 0x6EF07595UL,
0x417B1DBCUL, 0xB3109EBFUL, 0xA0406D4BUL, 0x522BEE48UL,
0x86E18AA3UL, 0x748A09A0UL, 0x67DAFA54UL, 0x95B17957UL,
0xCBA24573UL, 0x39C9C670UL, 0x2A993584UL, 0xD8F2B687UL,
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
0x0C38D26CUL, 0xFE53516FUL, 0xED03A29BUL, 0x1F682198UL,
0x5125DAD3UL, 0xA34E59D0UL, 0xB01EAA24UL, 0x42752927UL,
0x96BF4DCCUL, 0x64D4CECFUL, 0x77843D3BUL, 0x85EFBE38UL,
0xDBFC821CUL, 0x2997011FUL, 0x3AC7F2EBUL, 0xC8AC71E8UL,
0x1C661503UL, 0xEE0D9600UL, 0xFD5D65F4UL, 0x0F36E6F7UL,
0x61C69362UL, 0x93AD1061UL, 0x80FDE395UL, 0x72966096UL,
0xA65C047DUL, 0x5437877EUL, 0x4767748AUL, 0xB50CF789UL,
0xEB1FCBADUL, 0x197448AEUL, 0x0A24BB5AUL, 0xF84F3859UL,
0x2C855CB2UL, 0xDEEEDFB1UL, 0xCDBE2C45UL, 0x3FD5AF46UL,
0x7198540DUL, 0x83F3D70EUL, 0x90A324FAUL, 0x62C8A7F9UL,
0xB602C312UL, 0x44694011UL, 0x5739B3E5UL, 0xA55230E6UL,
0xFB410CC2UL, 0x092A8FC1UL, 0x1A7A7C35UL, 0xE811FF36UL,
0x3CDB9BDDUL, 0xCEB018DEUL, 0xDDE0EB2AUL, 0x2F8B6829UL,
0x82F63B78UL, 0x709DB87BUL, 0x63CD4B8FUL, 0x91A6C88CUL,
0x456CAC67UL, 0xB7072F64UL, 0xA457DC90UL, 0x563C5F93UL,
0x082F63B7UL, 0xFA44E0B4UL, 0xE9141340UL, 0x1B7F9043UL,
0xCFB5F4A8UL, 0x3DDE77ABUL, 0x2E8E845FUL, 0xDCE5075CUL,
0x92A8FC17UL, 0x60C37F14UL, 0x73938CE0UL, 0x81F80FE3UL,
0x55326B08UL, 0xA759E80BUL, 0xB4091BFFUL, 0x466298FCUL,
0x1871A4D8UL, 0xEA1A27DBUL, 0xF94AD42FUL, 0x0B21572CUL,
0xDFEB33C7UL, 0x2D80B0C4UL, 0x3ED04330UL, 0xCCBBC033UL,
0xA24BB5A6UL, 0x502036A5UL, 0x4370C551UL, 0xB11B4652UL,
0x65D122B9UL, 0x97BAA1BAUL, 0x84EA524EUL, 0x7681D14DUL,
0x2892ED69UL, 0xDAF96E6AUL, 0xC9A99D9EUL, 0x3BC21E9DUL,
0xEF087A76UL, 0x1D63F975UL, 0x0E330A81UL, 0xFC588982UL,
0xB21572C9UL, 0x407EF1CAUL, 0x532E023EUL, 0xA145813DUL,
0x758FE5D6UL, 0x87E466D5UL, 0x94B49521UL, 0x66DF1622UL,
0x38CC2A06UL, 0xCAA7A905UL, 0xD9F75AF1UL, 0x2B9CD9F2UL,
0xFF56BD19UL, 0x0D3D3E1AUL, 0x1E6DCDEEUL, 0xEC064EEDUL,
0xC38D26C4UL, 0x31E6A5C7UL, 0x22B65633UL, 0xD0DDD530UL,
0x0417B1DBUL, 0xF67C32D8UL, 0xE52CC12CUL, 0x1747422FUL,
0x49547E0BUL, 0xBB3FFD08UL, 0xA86F0EFCUL, 0x5A048DFFUL,
0x8ECEE914UL, 0x7CA56A17UL, 0x6FF599E3UL, 0x9D9E1AE0UL,
0xD3D3E1ABUL, 0x21B862A8UL, 0x32E8915CUL, 0xC083125FUL,
0x144976B4UL, 0xE622F5B7UL, 0xF5720643UL, 0x07198540UL,
0x590AB964UL, 0xAB613A67UL, 0xB831C993UL, 0x4A5A4A90UL,
0x9E902E7BUL, 0x6CFBAD78UL, 0x7FAB5E8CUL, 0x8DC0DD8FUL,
0xE330A81AUL, 0x115B2B19UL, 0x020BD8EDUL, 0xF0605BEEUL,
0x24AA3F05UL, 0xD6C1BC06UL, 0xC5914FF2UL, 0x37FACCF1UL,
0x69E9F0D5UL, 0x9B8273D6UL, 0x88D28022UL, 0x7AB90321UL,
0xAE7367CAUL, 0x5C18E4C9UL, 0x4F48173DUL, 0xBD23943EUL,
0xF36E6F75UL, 0x0105EC76UL, 0x12551F82UL, 0xE03E9C81UL,
0x34F4F86AUL, 0xC69F7B69UL, 0xD5CF889DUL, 0x27A40B9EUL,
0x79B737BAUL, 0x8BDCB4B9UL, 0x988C474DUL, 0x6AE7C44EUL,
0xBE2DA0A5UL, 0x4C4623A6UL, 0x5F16D052UL, 0xAD7D5351UL,
};
#endif
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.10. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
/* Example of table build routine */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define OUTPUT_FILE "crc32cr.h"
#define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41L
FILE *tf;
unsigned long
reflect_32 (unsigned long b)
{
int i;
unsigned long rw = 0L;
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++){
if (b & 1)
rw |= 1 << (31 - i);
b >>= 1;
}
return (rw);
}
unsigned long
build_crc_table (int index)
{
int i;
unsigned long rb;
rb = reflect_32 (index);
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++){
if (rb & 0x80000000L)
rb = (rb << 1) ^ CRC32C_POLY;
else
rb <<= 1;
}
return (reflect_32 (rb));
}
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
main ()
{
int i;
printf ("\nGenerating CRC-32c table file <%s>\n",
OUTPUT_FILE);
if ((tf = fopen (OUTPUT_FILE, "w")) == NULL){
printf ("Unable to open %s\n", OUTPUT_FILE);
exit (1);
}
fprintf (tf, "#ifndef __crc32cr_table_h__\n");
fprintf (tf, "#define __crc32cr_table_h__\n\n");
fprintf (tf, "#define CRC32C_POLY 0x%08lX\n",
CRC32C_POLY);
fprintf (tf,
"#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c>>8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&0xFF])\n");
fprintf (tf, "\nunsigned long crc_c[256] =\n{\n");
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++){
fprintf (tf, "0x%08lXL, ", build_crc_table (i));
if ((i & 3) == 3)
fprintf (tf, "\n");
}
fprintf (tf, "};\n\n#endif\n");
if (fclose (tf) != 0)
printf ("Unable to close <%s>." OUTPUT_FILE);
else
printf ("\nThe CRC-32c table has been written to <%s>.\n",
OUTPUT_FILE);
}
---------
New text: (Appendix B)
---------
/* Example of table build routine */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define OUTPUT_FILE "crc32cr.h"
#define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41UL
static FILE *tf;
static uint32_t
reflect_32(uint32_t b)
{
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
int i;
uint32_t rw = 0UL;
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
if (b & 1)
rw |= 1 << (31 - i);
b >>= 1;
}
return (rw);
}
static uint32_t
build_crc_table(int index)
{
int i;
uint32_t rb;
rb = reflect_32(index);
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (rb & 0x80000000UL)
rb = (rb << 1) ^ (uint32_t)CRC32C_POLY;
else
rb <<= 1;
}
return (reflect_32(rb));
}
int
main (void)
{
int i;
printf("\nGenerating CRC-32c table file <%s>\n",
OUTPUT_FILE);
if ((tf = fopen(OUTPUT_FILE, "w")) == NULL) {
printf ("Unable to open %s\n", OUTPUT_FILE);
exit (1);
}
fprintf(tf, "#ifndef __crc32cr_h__\n");
fprintf(tf, "#define __crc32cr_h__\n\n");
fprintf(tf, "#define CRC32C_POLY 0x%08XUL\n",
(uint32_t)CRC32C_POLY);
fprintf(tf,
"#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c>>8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&0xFF])\n");
fprintf(tf, "\nuint32_t crc_c[256] =\n{\n");
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
fprintf(tf, "0x%08XUL,", build_crc_table (i));
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
if ((i & 3) == 3)
fprintf(tf, "\n");
else
fprintf(tf, " ");
}
fprintf(tf, "};\n\n#endif\n");
if (fclose (tf) != 0)
printf("Unable to close <%s>.", OUTPUT_FILE);
else
printf("\nThe CRC-32c table has been written to <%s>.\n",
OUTPUT_FILE);
}
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.10. It is in final form, and is not
further updated in this document.
---------
Old text: (Appendix C)
---------
/* Example of crc insertion */
#include "crc32cr.h"
unsigned long
generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;
unsigned long result;
unsigned char byte0,byte1,byte2,byte3;
for (i = 0; i < length; i++){
CRC32C(crc32, buffer[i]);
}
result = ~crc32;
/* result now holds the negated polynomial remainder;
* since the table and algorithm is "reflected" [williams95].
* That is, result has the same value as if we mapped the message
* to a polynomial, computed the host-bit-order polynomial
* remainder, performed final negation, then did an end-for-end
* bit-reversal.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
* Note that a 32-bit bit-reversal is identical to four inplace
* 8-bit reversals followed by an end-for-end byteswap.
* In other words, the bytes of each bit are in the right order,
* but the bytes have been byteswapped. So we now do an explicit
* byteswap. On a little-endian machine, this byteswap and
* the final ntohl cancel out and could be elided.
*/
byte0 = result & 0xff;
byte1 = (result>>8) & 0xff;
byte2 = (result>>16) & 0xff;
byte3 = (result>>24) & 0xff;
crc32 = ((byte0 << 24) |
(byte1 << 16) |
(byte2 << 8) |
byte3);
return ( crc32 );
}
int
insert_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
SCTP_message *message;
unsigned long crc32;
message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
message->common_header.checksum = 0L;
crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
/* and insert it into the message */
message->common_header.checksum = htonl(crc32);
return 1;
}
int
validate_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
SCTP_message *message;
unsigned int i;
unsigned long original_crc32;
unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;
/* save and zero checksum */
message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
original_crc32 = ntohl(message->common_header.checksum);
message->common_header.checksum = 0L;
crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
return ((original_crc32 == crc32)? 1 : -1);
}
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
New text: (Appendix B)
---------
/* Example of crc insertion */
#include "crc32cr.h"
uint32_t
generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
unsigned int i;
uint32_t crc32 = 0xffffffffUL;
uint32_t result;
uint8_t byte0, byte1, byte2, byte3;
for (i = 0; i < length; i++) {
CRC32C(crc32, buffer[i]);
}
result = ~crc32;
/* result now holds the negated polynomial remainder;
* since the table and algorithm is "reflected" [williams95].
* That is, result has the same value as if we mapped the message
* to a polynomial, computed the host-bit-order polynomial
* remainder, performed final negation, then did an end-for-end
* bit-reversal.
* Note that a 32-bit bit-reversal is identical to four inplace
* 8-bit reversals followed by an end-for-end byteswap.
* In other words, the bits of each byte are in the right order,
* but the bytes have been byteswapped. So we now do an explicit
* byteswap. On a little-endian machine, this byteswap and
* the final ntohl cancel out and could be elided.
*/
byte0 = result & 0xff;
byte1 = (result>>8) & 0xff;
byte2 = (result>>16) & 0xff;
byte3 = (result>>24) & 0xff;
crc32 = ((byte0 << 24) |
(byte1 << 16) |
(byte2 << 8) |
byte3);
return (crc32);
}
int
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
insert_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
SCTP_message *message;
uint32_t crc32;
message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
message->common_header.checksum = 0UL;
crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
/* and insert it into the message */
message->common_header.checksum = htonl(crc32);
return 1;
}
int
validate_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
{
SCTP_message *message;
unsigned int i;
uint32_t original_crc32;
uint32_t crc32;
/* save and zero checksum */
message = (SCTP_message *)buffer;
original_crc32 = ntohl(message->common_header.checksum);
message->common_header.checksum = 0L;
crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer, length);
return ((original_crc32 == crc32)? 1 : -1);
}
<CODE ENDS>
This text has been modified by multiple errata. It includes
modifications from Section 3.5 and Section 3.10. It is in final
form, and is not further updated in this document.
3.46.3. Solution Description
The code was changed to use platform independent types.
3.47. Clarification of Gap Ack Blocks in SACK Chunks
3.47.1. Description of the Problem
The Gap Ack Blocks in the SACK chunk are intended to be isolated.
However, this is not mentioned with normative text.
This issue was reported as part of an Errata for [RFC4960] with
Errata ID 5202.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
3.47.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.4)
---------
The SACK also contains zero or more Gap Ack Blocks. Each Gap Ack
Block acknowledges a subsequence of TSNs received following a break
in the sequence of received TSNs. By definition, all TSNs
acknowledged by Gap Ack Blocks are greater than the value of the
Cumulative TSN Ack.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.4)
---------
The SACK also contains zero or more Gap Ack Blocks. Each Gap Ack
Block acknowledges a subsequence of TSNs received following a break
in the sequence of received TSNs. The Gap Ack Blocks SHOULD be isolated.
This means that the TSN just before each Gap Ack Block and the TSN just
after each Gap Ack Block has not been received. By definition, all TSNs
acknowledged by Gap Ack Blocks are greater than the value of the
Cumulative TSN Ack.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 3.3.4)
---------
Gap Ack Blocks:
These fields contain the Gap Ack Blocks. They are repeated for
each Gap Ack Block up to the number of Gap Ack Blocks defined in
the Number of Gap Ack Blocks field. All DATA chunks with TSNs
greater than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block
Start) and less than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
Block End) of each Gap Ack Block are assumed to have been received
correctly.
---------
New text: (Section 3.3.4)
---------
Gap Ack Blocks:
These fields contain the Gap Ack Blocks. They are repeated for
each Gap Ack Block up to the number of Gap Ack Blocks defined in
the Number of Gap Ack Blocks field. All DATA chunks with TSNs
greater than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block
Start) and less than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
Block End) of each Gap Ack Block are assumed to have been received
correctly. Gap Ack Blocks SHOULD be isolated. That means that
the DATA chunks with TSN equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
Block Start - 1) and (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block End + 1)
have not been received.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.47.3. Solution Description
Normative text describing the intended usage of Gap Ack Blocks has
been added.
3.48. Handling of SSN Wrap Arounds
3.48.1. Description of the Problem
The Stream Sequence Number (SSN) is used for preserving the ordering
of user messages within each SCTP stream. The SSN is limited to 16
bits. Therefore, multiple wrap arounds of the SSN might happen
within the current send window. To allow the receiver to deliver
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
ordered user messages in the correct sequence, the sender should
limit the number of user messages per stream.
3.48.2. Text Changes to the Document
---------
Old text: (Section 6.1)
---------
Note: The data sender SHOULD NOT use a TSN that is more than 2**31 -
1 above the beginning TSN of the current send window.
---------
New text: (Section 6.1)
---------
Note: The data sender SHOULD NOT use a TSN that is more than 2**31 -
1 above the beginning TSN of the current send window.
Note: For each stream, the data sender SHOULD NOT have more than 2**16-1
ordered user messages in the current send window.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.48.3. Solution Description
The data sender is required to limit the number of ordered user
messages within the current send window.
3.49. Update RFC 2119 Boilerplate
3.49.1. Description of the Problem
The text to be used to refer to the [RFC2119] terms has been updated
by [RFC8174].
3.49.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 2)
---------
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
---------
New text: (Section 2)
---------
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.49.3. Solution Description
The text has been updated to the one specified in [RFC8174].
3.50. Missed Text Removal
3.50.1. Description of the Problem
When integrating the changes to Section 7.2.4 of [RFC2960] as
described in Section 2.8.2 of [RFC4460] some text was not removed and
is therefore still in [RFC4960].
3.50.2. Text Changes to the Document
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
---------
Old text: (Section 7.2.4)
---------
A straightforward implementation of the above keeps a counter for
each TSN hole reported by a SACK. The counter increments for each
consecutive SACK reporting the TSN hole. After reaching 3 and
starting the Fast-Retransmit procedure, the counter resets to 0.
Because cwnd in SCTP indirectly bounds the number of outstanding
TSN's, the effect of TCP Fast Recovery is achieved automatically with
no adjustment to the congestion control window size.
---------
New text: (Section 7.2.4)
---------
This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this
document.
3.50.3. Solution Description
The text has finally been removed.
4. IANA Considerations
Section 3.44 of this document updates the port number registry for
SCTP to be consistent with [RFC6335]. IANA is requested to review
Section 3.44.
IANA is only requested to check if it is OK to make the proposed text
change in an upcoming standards track document that updates
[RFC4960]. IANA is not asked to perform any other action and this
document does not request IANA to make a change to any registry.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not add any security considerations to those given
in [RFC4960].
6. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Pontus Andersson, Eric W. Biederman,
Cedric Bonnet, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Benjamin Kaduk,
Mirja Kuehlewind, Peter Lei, Gyula Marosi, Lionel Morand, Jeff
Morriss, Karen E. E. Nielsen, Tom Petch, Kacheong Poon, Julien
Pourtet, Irene Ruengeler, Michael Welzl, and Qiaobing Xie for their
invaluable comments.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1858] Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1858, October 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1858>.
[RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 2960, DOI 10.17487/RFC2960, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2960>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC4460] Stewart, R., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Caro, A., and
M. Tuexen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Specification Errata and Issues", RFC 4460,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4460, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4460>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
[RFC6096] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Chunk Flags Registration", RFC 6096,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6096, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6096>.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK-
IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 7053, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8311] Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311>.
Authors' Addresses
Randall R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc.
Chapin, SC 29036
United States
Email: randall@lakerest.net
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft RFC 4960 Errata and Issues October 2018
Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Maksim Proshin
Ericsson
Kistavaegen 25
Stockholm 164 80
Sweden
Email: mproshin@tieto.mera.ru
Stewart, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 97]
