Padding Chunk and Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
RFC 4820
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
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).
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
I think this document would be better if it included some information about why this was needed or when it would be used.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection