Padding Chunk and Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
RFC 4820
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-07-29
|
02 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected)) |
|
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2007-04-02
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-04-02
|
02 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4820' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-03-29
|
02 | (System) | RFC published |
|
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 <jmpolk@cisco.com> 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 |