Skip to main content

Padding Chunk and Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-02

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2007-01-30
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-01-29
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2007-01-29
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2006-12-20
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-12-18
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-12-18
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-12-18
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-12-15
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-12-15
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-12-14
2006-12-14
02 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2006-12-14
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza
2006-12-14
02 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2006-12-13
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2006-12-13
02 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner
2006-12-13
02 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-12-13
02 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make two changes to the
SCTP registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters

First, in the subregistry …
IANA Last Call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make two changes to the
SCTP registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters

First, in the subregistry called CHUNK TYPES, IANA will add a new
value to the subregistry:

ID Value Chunk Type
-------- ----------
132(0x84) Padding Chunk (PAD)

Second, in the subregistry called CHUNK PARAMETER TYPES, IANA
will add a new value to the subregistry:

Chunk Parameter Type Value
-------------------- -----
Padding 32773(0x8005)

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2006-12-13
02 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2006-12-13
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2006-12-13
02 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. SCTP is not expanded in the title of the document or in the Abstract section.

2. The Introduction Section says 'The inappropriate …
[Ballot comment]
1. SCTP is not expanded in the title of the document or in the Abstract section.

2. The Introduction Section says 'The inappropriate usage of the PAD parameter or PAD chunk can result in wasted bandwidth.' I would expect this issue to be dealt with in the Security Considerations section, but that one only refers to the Security Considerations section in RFC2960 which contains no reference to network DOS attacks by saturating links and denying bandwidth to other applications.

3. Does this document update RRFC2960? in which case this should be mentioned in the header
2006-12-13
02 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2006-12-13
02 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-12-12
02 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-12-12
02 Cullen Jennings [Ballot comment]
I think this document would be better if it included some information about why this was needed or when it would be used.
2006-12-12
02 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2006-12-11
02 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2006-12-11
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2006-12-11
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-12-08
02 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Suggestion from Gen-Art Reviewer Pasi Eronen:
It would be helpful if
the abstract mentioned the motivation why someone might want to add
padding …
[Ballot comment]
Suggestion from Gen-Art Reviewer Pasi Eronen:
It would be helpful if
the abstract mentioned the motivation why someone might want to add
padding to SCTP packets (i.e., path MTU discovery).
2006-12-08
02 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-12-07
02 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-12-14 by Lars Eggert
2006-12-07
02 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2006-12-07
02 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2006-12-07
02 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2006-12-05
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Schiller
2006-12-05
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Schiller
2006-11-30
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2006-11-29
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2006-11-29
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2006-11-29
02 Lars Eggert AD review happened during WGLC.
2006-11-29
02 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'PROTO Document Shepherd: James Polk' added by Lars Eggert
2006-11-29
02 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2006-11-29
02 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2006-11-29
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-11-29
02 (System) Last call text was added
2006-11-29
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-11-28
02 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready …
PROTO Write-up

1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
to forward to the IESG for publication? Which chair is the WG
Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, Shepherd is James Polk

1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. There are no concerns.

1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization,
XML, etc.)?

No, this document requires no broader review.

1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No, there are no concerns with this document.

1.e) 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 solid WG consensus for this document to become an RFC. This
effort has been reviewed by a number of people.

1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be
separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into
the tracker).

No, there are no threats of appeal

1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Yes, there are no nits. The boilerplate is good.

There is an incorrect RFC-2119 warning, as Section 2 covers RFC-2119 within
this document. The experimental warning regarding RFCXXXX is misplaced, as
XXXX will be replaced with the RFC number for this document if it should be
assigned one by the RFC-Editor.

1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to IDs, where the
IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
unclear state? The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with
normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until
all such IDs are also ready for RFC publication). If the
normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their
completion? On a related matter, are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967
RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? Listing these supports the Area Director in
the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.

References are split. No normative references to drafts.


1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following
sections:

* Technical Summary

This document defines a padding chunk and a padding parameter and describes
the required receiver side procedures. The padding chunk is used to pad an
SCTP packet to an arbitrary size. The padding parameter is used to pad an
SCTP INIT chunk to an arbitrary size

* Working Group Summary

There is strong consensus in the WG to publish this document. It has been
reviewed by several people in the WG last call. Comments raised has been
addressed

* Protocol Quality

This document extends the for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP),
and has had many comments, all of which have been reviewed within the TSVWG
to the WG's satisfaction.


Cheers,
James
IETF TSVWG co-chair
2006-11-28
02 Dinara Suleymanova State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Dinara Suleymanova
2006-11-28
02 Dinara Suleymanova Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2006-10-17
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-02.txt
2006-09-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-01.txt
2006-06-12
02 Lars Eggert Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching
2006-06-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-00.txt