RFC 4960 Errata and Issues
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
- This doument proposes changes to update the base SCTP RFC. Publication will be followed by a standards-action document that implements these changes by the WG.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document is a compilation of issues found since the publication of the SCTP protocol specification as RFC4960 in September 2007 based on experience with implementing, testing, and using SCTP along with the suggested fixes. It 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 that should be applied. In addition to the delta a description of the problem and the details of the solution are also provided.
Working Group Summary
This document was adopted 22nd August 2016, as an Informational document to document the intended changes to the base spec. This follows the same process used to update RFC 2960 to RFC 4960 (where RFC 4460 documents the changes between the two spec). Publication of RFC 4460 had the advantage that base spec implementors updating RFC 2960, did not then have to derive the
chabges between the two RFCs. This process also only required editorial work to complete publication of RFC 4960. Since this plan had worked well, the implementers of SCTP requested the WG to proceed in the same way for the present work. The resulting document progressed with input from the WG and SCTP implementors was subject of a WGLC comments in Dec 2017. A revised ID was presented to TSVWG, and received support for publication.
There are existing implementations of the protocol, people from implementor community commented and reviewed this ID. The document represents consensus of the TSV WG.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
During the lifetime of this ID, the document has been discussed by the WG and a bug tracker has been used to track the contributions. 8 people provided review comments or sent corrections during the WGLC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
R. Stewart: Confirmed No known IPR
M. Tuexen: Confirmed No known IPR
M. Proshin: Confirmed No known IPR
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is strong consensus, and no opposition for this proposed update,
The WG has consensus to open edits of the base spec with a
view to progress SCTP to Full Standard.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
These are documented in section 3.44, and describe issues already raised with IANA.
IANA is requested to check the revised text is consistent with their registries.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
NOTES ON IMPLEMENTATIONS (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-05):
The following implementation status reports were received:
"The FreeBSD kernel implementation should already follow the new text given in the document." - Michael Tuexen, 6th March 2018.
"I have no comments on it myself. Have used this Errata some time ago
(we had rwnd/cwnd handling fixes on Linux stack because of the errata),
went over it again now, it LGTM and I don't think we (Linux stack) have
(major) discrepancies due to it." - Marcelo Ricardo Leitner November, 21st 2017.
"Ericsson SCTP implementations support the changes proposed in the draft and they are already deployed in real mobile networks." - Maxim Proshin, 7th March 2018.