Re: [SCTP] a small correction in RFC 4960

Submit it as an errata to the RFC Editor for now.

Lars

On 2008-6-12, at 9:44, ext Michael Tüxen wrote:

> Hi Ash,
>
> yes, that is a (at least by me) known issue... This comes up, when you
> dimension your parameters to fullfil a given path error detection  
> time...
>
> I'm not sure if we should start again an errata ID...
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Ash Kat wrote:
>
>> Hello:
>>
>> 'Path.Max.Retrans' parmeters specifies the maximum number of  
>> retransmission on a path before that path is marked down.
>>
>> Section 8.3 of RFC says:
>>   When the value of this counter ""reaches"" the protocol parameter
>>   'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
>>   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may  
>> also
>>   optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
>>   this destination address.
>>
>> This will make the Heartbeat to be re-transmitted one count less  
>> then 'Path.Max.Retrans'
>>
>> This is correct in Section 8.2 which says:
>>   When the value in the error counter ""exceeds"" the protocol  
>> parameter
>>   'Path.Max.Retrans' of that destination address, the endpoint should
>>   mark the destination transport address as inactive, and a
>>   notification SHOULD be sent to the upper layer.
>>
>> So Section 8.3 should be modified and a path should be marked down  
>> when error count exceeds 'Path.Max.Retrans'.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashwani Kathuria
>>
>> Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Yahoo!  
>> Group.
>