This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 9, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.xml
4193 lines (3691 loc) · 146 KB
/
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="2" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<rfc category="info"
ipr="trust200902"
docName="draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-08.txt">
<front>
<title>RFC 4960 Errata and Issues</title>
<!-- *************** RANDALL STEWART *************** -->
<author initials="R. R." surname="Stewart" fullname="Randall R. Stewart">
<organization>Netflix, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city>Chapin</city>
<region>SC</region>
<code>29036</code>
<country>United States</country>
</postal>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<!-- ************** MICHAEL TUEXEN *************** -->
<author initials="M." surname="Tuexen" fullname="Michael Tuexen">
<organization abbrev='Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences'>
Muenster University of Applied Sciences</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Stegerwaldstrasse 39</street>
<city>48565 Steinfurt</city>
<country>Germany</country>
</postal>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<!-- ************** MAKSIM PROSHIN *************** -->
<author initials="M." surname="Proshin" fullname="Maksim Proshin">
<organization>Ericsson</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Kistavaegen 25</street>
<city>Stockholm</city>
<code> 164 80</code>
<country>Sweden</country>
</postal>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<date />
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'>
<t>This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
the publication of this document for <xref target="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.</t>
<t>This document provides a history of the changes that will be compiled
into a BIS document for <xref target="RFC4960"/>. It is structured similar
to <xref target="RFC4460"/>.</t>
<t>Each error will be detailed within this document in the form of:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>The problem description,</t>
<t>The text quoted from <xref target="RFC4960"/>,</t>
<t>The replacement text that should be placed into an upcoming BIS document,</t>
<t>A description of the solution.</t>
</list></t>
<t>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 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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor='conventions' title='Conventions'>
<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when,
and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
</section>
<section title='Corrections to RFC 4960'>
<!-- Skeleton for an issue.
<section title='FIXME: Descriptive name of the issue'>
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>FIXME</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
FIXME
</artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>FIXME</t>
</section>
</section>
-->
<!--
Current Erratas listed at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4960
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1440 Verified (Section 3.1)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1574 Verified (Section 3.2)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2592 Verified (Section 3.3)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3291 Held for Document Update (Section 3.4)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3423 Verified (Section 3.5)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3788 Verified (Section 3.6)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3804 Reported (Duplicate of 3291) (Section 3.4)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4071 Held for Document Update (Section 3.7)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4250 Rejected
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4400 Verified (Section 3.8)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4656 Reported (Should be accepted) (Section 3.24)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4876 Reported (Should be rejected)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5003 Reported (Should be accepted) (Section 3.9)
* http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5202 Reported (Isolation OK, Monotonic not) (Section 3.47)
-->
<t>[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
<list>
<t>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
<xref target="RFC2960"/>, which are intended.</t>
</list>
]</t>
<section title='Path Error Counter Threshold Handling'
anchor='Path_Error_Counter_Threshold_Handling'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1440 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>The handling of the 'Path.Max.Retrans' parameter is described in
Section 8.2 and Section 8.3 of <xref target="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.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 1440.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in
<xref target="Inconsistency_in_Notifications_Handling"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>The intended state change should happen when the threshold is exceeded.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Upper Layer Protocol Shutdown Request Handling'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1574 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Section 9.2 of <xref target="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.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 1574.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Registration of New Chunk Types'
anchor='Registration_of_New_Chunk_Types'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2592 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Section 14.1 of <xref target="RFC4960"/> should deal with new chunk types,
however, the text refers to parameter types.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 2592.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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:
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in <xref target="Integration_of_RFC_6096"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Refer to chunk types as intended and change reference to
<xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Variable Parameters for INIT Chunks'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3291 -->
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3804 -->
<!-- The table was correctly formatted in RFC 2960 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Newlines in wrong places break the layout of the table of variable
parameters for the INIT chunk in Section 3.3.2 of <xref target="RFC4960"/>.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 3291 and Errata ID 3804.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Fix the formatting of the table.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='CRC32c Sample Code on 64-bit Platforms'
anchor='CRC32c_Sample_Code_on_64_bit_Platforms'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3423 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>The sample code for computing the CRC32c provided in <xref target="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).</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 3423.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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;
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in <xref target="CRC32c_Sample_Code"/> and in
<xref target="CRC32c_Code_Improvements"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Use 0xffffffffL instead of ~0L which gives the same value on platforms using
32 bits or 64 bits for variables of type unsigned long.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Endpoint Failure Detection'
anchor='Endpoint_Failure_Detection'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3788 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>The handling of the association error counter defined in Section 8.1 of
<xref target="RFC4960"/> can result in an association failure even if the
path used for data transmission is available, but idle.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 3788.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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).
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in
<xref target="Inconsistency_in_Notifications_Handling"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>A more refined handling for the association error counter is defined.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Data Transmission Rules'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4071 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>When integrating the changes to Section 6.1 A) of <xref target="RFC2960"/>
as described in Section 2.15.2 of <xref target="RFC4460"/> some text was
duplicated and became the final paragraph of Section 6.1 A) of
<xref target="RFC4960"/>.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 4071.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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].
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Last paragraph of Section 6.1 A) removed as intended in Section 2.15.2 of
<xref target="RFC4460"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='T1-Cookie Timer'
anchor='T1_Cookie_Timer'>
<!-- http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4400 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Figure 4 of <xref target="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.</t>
<t>This issue was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 4400.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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)
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in <xref target="Miscellaneous_Typos"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Change the figure such that the T1-cookie timer is used instead of the
T1-init timer.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Miscellaneous Typos'
anchor='Miscellaneous_Typos'>
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>While processing <xref target="RFC4960"/> some typos were not caught.</t>
<t>One typo was reported as an Errata for <xref target="RFC4960"/> with
Errata ID 5003.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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)
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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])
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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)
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 4460 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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".
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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)
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It includes modifications from <xref target="T1_Cookie_Timer"/>.
It is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 2960 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<!-- The following was already incorrect in RFC 4460 -->
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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).
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Typos fixed.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='CRC32c Sample Code'
anchor='CRC32c_Sample_Code'>
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>The CRC32c computation is described in Appendix B of <xref target="RFC4960"/>.
However, the corresponding sample code and its explanation appears at the end
of Appendix C, which deals with ICMP handling.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<t>Move all of Appendix C starting with the following sentence to the end
of Appendix B.</t>
<figure>
<artwork>
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It includes modifications from
<xref target="CRC32c_Sample_Code_on_64_bit_Platforms"/>.
It is further updated in <xref target="CRC32c_Code_Improvements"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Text moved to the appropriate location.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='partial_bytes_acked after T3-rtx Expiration'>
<!-- The following was correct in RFC 4460 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Section 7.2.3 of <xref target="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.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>Specify that partial_bytes_acked should be reset to 0 after T3-rtx timer
expiration.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd'
anchor='Order_of_Adjustments_of_partial_bytes_acked_and_cwnd'>
<!-- The correction is in accordance with RFC 3465, Section 2.1 -->
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Section 7.2.2 of <xref target="RFC4960"/> likely implies the wrong order of
adjustments applied to partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion
avoidance phase.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text has been modified by multiple errata.
It is further updated in
<xref target="CWND_Increase_in_Congestion_Avoidance_Phase"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title='Solution Description'>
<t>The new text defines the exact order of adjustments of
partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion avoidance phase.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='HEARTBEAT ACK and the association error counter'
anchor='HEARTBEAT_ACK_and_the_association_error_counter'>
<section title='Description of the Problem'>
<t>Section 8.1 and Section 8.3 of <xref target="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.</t>
</section>
<section title='Text Changes to the Document'>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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.
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>This text is in final form, and is not further updated in this document.</t>
<figure>
<artwork>
---------
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)