Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
RFC 6458
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 32 and is now closed.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree that a normative reference to the POSIX specification (IEEE 1003.1) would be appropriate.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
While addressing Adrian's discuss, please look for a way to capture that this _has been_ the api definition for some time (the document's been around for a decade) and that you are deprecating parts of the API previously documented here. Please make it clear that there is no other formal definition of the API elsewhere that this is obsoleting.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- In section 2, it'd be good to provide a (normative?) reference for the Posix API. Also, you're specifying the 1997 version - is that deliberate? (There seems to be a later version, but I'm not sure what today's systems follow.) - The security considerations might benefit from adding a generic sentence about implementation security, e.g. warning about buffer overruns, or maybe telling developers to go check out the CVE databases. - I was surprised not to see a mention of RFC 6083 (DTLS over SCTP). I'm not sure how DTLS would be implemented with this API. If its analogous to TLS/TCP then it'd be above this API I guess, but that'd be worth a mention, e.g. saying "If you want transport security, then DTLS [RFC 6083] can be used, but is expected to be implemented above, and not inside, this API." or something like that.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection