Network Working Group R. Stewart
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: June 12, 2003 C. Bestler
J. Jim
Microsoft
S. Ganguly
Iomega Corp, Inc.
S. Shah
Intel
V. Vivek
IBM
December 12, 2002
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Remote Direct Memory
Access (RDMA) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaption
draft-stewart-rddp-sctp-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement (DDP)
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) RFC2960 [2] using a generic description found in
[RDMA-Draft] [4] and [DDP-Draft] [3].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Adaptation Layer Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Payload Protocol Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. SCTP Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Adaptation Layer Indication Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Multihoming Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Number of Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Recomended Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 Alternate Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Unordered Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1 Recomended Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2 Ordered Operation - Alternate to prior section . . . . . . . . 10
6.3 Unordered Operation With Numbered Messages - 3rd Option . . . 10
7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1 Association Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 Stream Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3 Chunk Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4 STag Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
1. Introduction
This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement (DDP)
and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) RFC2960 [2] using a generic description found in
[RDMA-Draft] [4] and [DDP-Draft] [3] This adaption provides a method
for two peers to know that each side is performing DDP or RDMA thus
enabling hardware acceleration if available.
Some implementations may include this adaptation layer within their
SCTP implementations to obtain maximum performance but the behavior
of SCTP will be unaffected. In order to accomplish this we specify
the use of the new adaptation layer indication as defined in
[ADDIP-Draft] [6]
1.1 Definitions
DDP stream - A bi-directional pair of SCTP streams which have the
same SCTP identifier.
RNIC - R? Network Interface Card.
1.2 Conventions
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when
they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in
RFC2119 [1].
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
2. Data Formats
2.1 Adaptation Layer Indicator
This mapping places an entire SCTP association into a specific DDP
mode: DDP or DDP+RDMA. It is presumed that the handling of incoming
data chunks for DDP enabled associations is sufficiently different
than for routine SCTP associations that it is undesirable to mix DDP
and non-DDP streams in a single association. An application that
needs to mix DDP and non-DDP traffic must use use more than a single
association.
We define a adaption indication which MUST appear in the INIT or
INIT-ACK with the following format as defined in [ADDIP-Draft] [6]
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 =0xC006 | Length = Variable |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adaptation Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Adaptation Indication:
The following values are defined for DDP in this document:
DDP - 0x00000001
DDP+RDMA - 0x00000002
The DDP implementation MAY require that all associations for a given
SCTP endpoint be placed in the same mode.
The local interface MAY allow the ULP to accept only requests to
establish an association in a specified mode.
2.2 Payload Protocol Identifier
SCTP provides for delivery of user data messages. Each user message
consists of a length, the data bytes and a Payload Protocol
Identifier. The DDP SCTP adaptation uses two different Payload
Protocol Identifiers.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
Payload Protocol Identifier:
The following value are defined for DDP in this document:
DDP Message - 0x00000001
Adaptation Layer Control - 0x00000002
DDP Messages are as defined in [DDP-Draft]. Adaptation Layer Control
messages are defined in this document.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Function Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Function Data (Dependent on Function Code) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following function code values are defined for DDP in
this document:
DDP Stream Reset - 0x00000001
A DDP Stream Reset message MUST be presented to the SCTP layer with a
Payload Protocol Identifer of one and a length of 4 bytes (i.e. the
Function Code 0x00000001 with no Function dependant data).
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
3. SCTP Endpoints
3.1 Adaptation Layer Indication Restriction
The local interface MUST allow the ULP to specify an SCTP endpoint to
use a specific Adaptation Indication. It MAY require the ULP to do
so.
Once an endpoint specifies an Adaptation Indication, it SHOULD refuse
all requests to establish an association with a different Adaptation
Indication.
An SCTP implementation MAY choose to accept association requests for
a given SCTP endpoint only until one association for the endpoint has
been established. At that point it MAY choose to restrict all
further associations for the same endpoint to use the same Adaptation
Indication.
3.2 Multihoming Implications
SCTP allows an SCTP endpoint to be associated with multiple IP
addresses, potentially representing different interface devices.
Distribution of the logic for a single DDP stream across multiple
input devices can be very undesirable, resulting in complex cache
coherency challenges. Therefore the local interface MAY restrict
DDP-enabled SCTP endpoints to a single IP address, or to a set of IP
addresses that are all assigned to the same input device ("RNIC").
The default binding of a DDP enabled SCTP endpoint SHOULD NOT cover
more than a single IP address unless doing so results in no
additional bus traffic or duplication of memory registration
resources. This will frequently result in a different default than
for SCTP endpoints that are not DDP enabled.
Even when multi-homing is supported, ULPs are cautioned that they
SHOULD NOT use ULP control of the source address in attempt to
load-balance a stream across multiple paths. A receiving DDP/SCTP
implementation that chooses to support multi-homing SHOULD optimize
its design on the assumption that multi-homing will be used for
network fault tolerance, and not to load-balance between paths. This
is consistent with recomended SCTP practices.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
4. Number of Streams
DDP Streams are bidirectional. They are always composed by pairing
the inbound and outbound SCTP streams with the same SCTP Stream
Identifier.
DDP should request the maximum it will wish to use from SCTP. DDP
Streams cannot be used without prior pre-posting of receive
operations and/or enabling of STags. Therefore DDP will be able to
initialize each stream on an "as needed" basis.
This mapping uses an SCTP association to carry one or more DDP
Steams. Each DDP Stream will be mapped to a pair of SCTP streams
with the same SCTP stream number. DDP MUST initialize all of its
SCTP associations with the same number of inbound and outbound
streams.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
5. Fragmentation
5.1 Recomended Version
Fragmentation of DDP messages is possible at three layers: DDP, SCTP
and IP.
The DDP layer is responsible for submitting messages to the SCTP
layer that conform to the PMTU. The SCTP layer MAY assume this has
been done. The DDP layer MAY also wish to set the fragmentation
point (usualy termed SCTP_MAXSEG) to a low enough value to assure
that PMTU changes will not cause IP fragmentation.
It is possible that the DDP layer and SCTP layer are sufficiently
separated that the DDP layer will know of PMTU changes later than the
SCTP layer. In such an environment, the SCTP layer SHOULD segment
DDP submitted messages to conform to the Path MTU when necessary.
When the SCTP layer does not segment, or when the Path MTU first
changes, the SCTP packet will be rejected for being too large. SCTP
already provides for the packet to be fragmented at the IP layer by
the sender. This process ensures that the SCTP layer will discover
PMTU changes.
Each DDP Segment to be sent MUST be presented to the SCTP layer as a
single message. Because the SCTP layer MUST inform the DDP layer of
all changes to the path MTU, each presented message will typically
fit in a single SCTP Data Chunk. However, relaying of PMTU change
notices, formatting and submission of messages may all be
asynchronous interfaces. Therefore it is possible that a single DDP
message may be formatted into multiple STCP data chunks by the SCTP
layer.
While unlikely, SCTP layer fragmentation is preferable to IP
fragmentation. If received in order, each SCTP fragmented data chunk
is immediately placable. Each SCTP fragment can be validated and
acked. The first data chunk will always contain the complete DDP
header. With IP fragmentation, DDP placement cannot take place until
after the entire IP datagram is reassembled.
An integrated DDP/SCTP receiver MUST NOT assume that fragmentation
will only occur at the DDP and IP layers. It MUST be ready to
properly handle both IP and SCTP fragmentation as specified by those
protocols.
5.2 Alternate Version
A DDP/SCTP Receiver already must deal with fragementation at both the
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
IP and DDP Layers. Therefore the sending DDP layer MUST disable SCTP
layer segmenting of data chunks. If the DDP layer presents messages
that are too large, the result will be IP fragmentation. While SCTP
layer fragmentation is theoretically preferable, virtually all
fragmentation will be done at the DDP layer. Because SCTP layer
fragmentation would only be invoked under corner conditions, its
benefits do not justify the complexity of its inclusion.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
6. Unordered Operation
6.1 Recomended Option
DDP MUST use the Unordered option on all Data Chunks (U Flag set to
one). This guarantees that validated SCTP Data Chunks will be
delivered to the receiving DDP layer promptly.
Upon delivery, the DDP layer may do placement processing. However
the DDP layer MUST NOT deliver a completion to its ULP until after
the SCTP cumulative Ack point has passed the SCTP packet the data
chunk was within.
The SCTP layer SHOULD NOT delay delivery to the DDP layer pending
actual transmission of the ack.
Untagged DDP messages carry their own MSN (Message Sequence Number).
Use of ordered SCTP delivery would only provide a redundant sequence
number at the cost of delaying delivery of validated SCTP Data Chunks
to the DDP layer.
6.2 Ordered Operation - Alternate to prior section
DDP MUST use the Ordered option on all Data Chunks (U Flag set to
zero). This guarantees that each stream can process its completions
without risk of a single missing message holding up all streams on
the association.
The SCTP layer SHOULD provided validated SCTP chunks to the DDP layer
for placement processing as soon as they are available. The SCTP
layer MUST deliver SCTP data chunks in order per stream to the DDP
layer.
The SCTP layer SHOULD NOT delay delivery to the DDP layer pending
actual transmission of the ack.
6.3 Unordered Operation With Numbered Messages - 3rd Option
DDP MUST use the Unordered option on all Data Chunks (U Flag set to
one). However, the Message Sequence Number (MSN) MUST be set as
though the U Flag had been set to zero.
The SCTP receiver is required by RFC2960 to ignore the received MSN
on unordered data chunks. However, it MUST pass this data through to
the DDP layer unmodified.
The DDP layer MAY use the MSN to determine that all prior messages
for this stream have been acked, and that therefore a message can be
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
completed. If it chooses to do so, it MUST follow the rules that
SCTP would have followed for Ordered operation.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
7. Procedures
7.1 Association Initialization
At the startup of an association, an endpoint wishing to perform DDP,
RDMA, or DDP+RDMA placement MUST include an adaptation layer
indication in its INIT or INIT-ACK (as defined in Section 2.1. After
the exchange of the initial first two SCTP chunks (INIT and
INIT-ACK), an endpoint MUST verify and inspect the adaptation
indication and compare it to the following table to determine proper
action.
Indication | Action
type |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| This indicates that the peer DOES NOT
NONE | support ANY DDP or RDMA adaption and thus
| RDMA and DDP procedures MUST NOT be
| performed upon this association.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| This indicates that the peer DOES support
DDP | DDP (but not RDMA). Procedures outlined in
| [RDMA-Draft] MUST be followed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| This indicates that the peer supports BOTH
DDP+RDMA | RDMA and DDP. If the receiving endpoint
| indicated the same, then the procedures in
| both [RDMA-Draft] and [DDP-Draft]
| MUST be followed. If the local endpoint
only indicated
| RDMA, then ONLY the procedures in
| [RDMA-Draft] MUST be followed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| This indicates that the peer DOES NOT
ANY-OTHER | support ANY DDP or RDMA adaption and thus
Indication | RDMA and DDP procedures MUST NOT be
| performed upon this association.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7.2 Stream Reset
DDP [DDP-Draft] requires that a DDP Stream be aborted upon certain
error conditions such as receiving an untagged message which the
receiving side ULP had not enabled the reception of.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
When a DDP stream is aborted, no further incoming packets will be
accepted for that stream until the stream is re-established. Many
ULPs will maintain a session by re-establishing the DDP stream after
such a termination.
Once a DDP Stream is declared to be aborted all DDP Messages on that
stream MUST be discarded. Placement MUST NOT be performed. DDP
Messages MUST NOT be delivered to the ULP. New DDP Messages from the
ULP MUST NOT be accepted.
The aborted state MUST continue until a DDP Stream Reset Message is
received. When this packet is received, the inbound SCTP stream will
be re-enabled for normal handling of DDP Messages.
The DDP layer MAY send a DDP SCTP Stream Reset message in a Data
Chunk to enable re-use of a Stream Identifier within an association
for a new DDP Stream. However, it SHOULD select a previously unused
stream first, if one is available.
The ability to re-use a Stream Identifier allows an SCTP association
between two endpoints to remain open indefinitely. Isolated ULP
faults will only impact the ULP components using the faulted stream,
not those merely sharing the same association.
7.3 Chunk Bundling
SCTP allows multiple Data Chunks to be bundled in a single SCTP
packet. Data chunks containing untagged messages SHOULD NOT be
delayed to facilitate bundling. Data chunks containing tagged
messages will generally be full sized, and hence not subject to
bundling. However partial sized untagged messages MAY be delayed, as
that they are frequently followed by a short untagged message.
7.4 STag Validation
STag validation is to be performed on a per stream basis. An
integrated DDP/SCTP implementation MUST NOT enable an STag for an
entire SCTP association merely because it is enabled for a single
stream on that association. The ULP MUST be able to control STag
enabling on a per stream basis, without regard to which SCTP
association each stream is a part of.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
8. IANA considerations
This document defines two new Adaptation Layer Indication codepoints:
DDP - 0x00000001
DDP+RDMA - 0x00000002
This document also defines two new Payload Protocol Identifier
(PPIDs):
DDP Message - 0x00000001
Adaptation Layer Control - 0x00000002
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
9. Security Considerations
Any direct placement of memory could pose a significant security risk
if adequate local controls are not provided. These threats should be
addressed in the appropriate DDP [DDP-Draft] [3] or RDMA [RDMA-Draft]
[4] drafts. This document does not add any additional security risks
over those found in RFC2960 [2].
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
10. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the following people that have
provided comments and input Stephen Bailey, David Black, Douglas
Otis, and Allyn Romanow.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] 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, October 2000.
[3] Culley, P., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
draft-shah-iwarp-ddp-00 (work in progress), September 2002.
[4] Recio, R., "An RDMA Protocol Specification",
draft-recio-iwarp-rdma-01 (work in progress), November 2002.
[5] Stewart, R., "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-05 (work in
progress), September 2002.
[6] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-06 (work in progress), September
2002.
Authors' Addresses
Randall R. Stewart
Cisco Systems, Inc.
8725 West Higgins Road
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60631
USA
Phone: +1-815-477-2127
EMail: rrs@cisco.com
Caitlin Bestler
1241 W. North Shore
# 2G
Chicago, IL 60626
USA
Phone: +1-773-743-1594
EMail: cait@asomi.com
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
Jim Pinkerton
Microsoft
Need
Your
Info, Jim 11111
USA
Phone: +1-xxx-xxx-xxx
EMail: jpink@microsoft.com
Sukanta Ganguly
Iomega Corp, Inc.
4435 Eastgate Mall
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92121
USA
Phone: +1-858-795-7026
EMail: ganguly@iomega.com
Shah Hemal
Intel
Need
Your
Info, Shah 11111
USA
Phone: +1-xxx-xxx-xxx
EMail: hemal.shah@intel.com
Vivek Kashyap
IBM
Need
Your
Info, Vivek 11111
USA
Phone: +1-xxx-xxx-xxx
EMail: vivk@us.ibm.com
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SCTP RDMA/DDP Adaptation December 2002
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Stewart, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 20]
