Skip to main content

Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
RFC 6458

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-04-28
32 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2017-02-03
32 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag)
2015-10-14
32 (System) Notify list changed from tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
32 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2012-08-22
32 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
32 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2011-12-12
32 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-12-11
32 (System) RFC published
2011-10-18
32 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-10-18
32 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-10-18
32 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-10-17
32 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-10-17
32 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-10-17
32 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-10-17
32 Wesley Eddy State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup.
2011-10-17
32 Wesley Eddy Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-10-15
32 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss
2011-10-15
32 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-10-11
32 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-10-11
32 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup text changed
2011-10-11
32 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup text changed
2011-10-10
32 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-10-10
32 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-32.txt
2011-10-06
32 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-10-06
32 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-10-06
32 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 15-Sept-2011 raised a question:
  >
  > For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 15-Sept-2011 raised a question:
  >
  > For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear how the
  > source address will be selected when sending a message, if bindx or
  > wildcarding has been used to bind multiple source addresses?  My
  > guess is that this lack of description matches other specs in how
  > that is handled, but I wanted to check.
  >
  The authors suggested some text for the document, but a new version
  has not been posted and no RFC Editor note has been entered.
2011-10-06
32 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-10-06
32 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-06
32 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-05
32 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
<process weenie>

I think based on the IETF's TLP you need to put



/*

  Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons …
[Ballot discuss]
<process weenie>

I think based on the IETF's TLP you need to put



/*

  Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified
  as authors of the code. All rights reserved.

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
  or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
  to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
  set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions
  Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

*/

code goes here



in appendix A and B.

</process weenie>
2011-10-05
32 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-10-05
32 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot comment]
I agree that a normative reference to the POSIX specification (IEEE 1003.1) would be appropriate.
2011-10-05
32 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-05
32 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
- In section 2, it'd be good to provide a (normative?) reference for
the Posix API. Also, you're specifying the 1997 version - …
[Ballot comment]
- 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.
2011-10-05
32 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-04
32 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 15-Sept-2011 raised a question:
  >
  > For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 15-Sept-2011 raised a question:
  >
  > For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear how the
  > source address will be selected when sending a message, if bindx or
  > wildcarding has been used to bind multiple source addresses?  My
  > guess is that this lack of description matches other specs in how
  > that is handled, but I wanted to check.
  >
  The authors suggested some text for the document, but a new version
  has not been posted and no RFC Editor note has been entered.
2011-10-04
32 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-10-04
32 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2011-10-04
32 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-04
32 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
idnits notes that RFC 1644 has been obsoleted by RFC 6247

This is also noted in the Shepherd write-up.
Please enter an RFC …
[Ballot comment]
idnits notes that RFC 1644 has been obsoleted by RFC 6247

This is also noted in the Shepherd write-up.
Please enter an RFC Editor note so the RFC Editor knows how to resolve this.
2011-10-04
32 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to see some generic discussion of the definition within
this document of "deprecated" data structures, options, and functions.

As it …
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to see some generic discussion of the definition within
this document of "deprecated" data structures, options, and functions.

As it currently reads, you are defining sockets for SCTP as a new
concept, and part of this definition includes things that you should
no longer do! That looks a bit weird, especially in Section 9 which
has the heading "New Functions" (they are so new, they are old :-)

I'd suggest a new section 1.1 called "Deprecated Features"

You need to say:
- why they are marked deprecated
- why you are still documenting them
- what a new implementation is supposed to implement

Hopefully, you can do this as a simple paragraph that can be inserted
with an RFC Editor note.
2011-10-04
32 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-10-03
32 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-10-03
32 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-09-27
32 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-09-22
32 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-09-22
32 Amanda Baber [Note]: 'James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> is the Document Shepherd.' added by Amanda Baber
2011-09-13
32 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2011-09-13
32 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt> (Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)'
  <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-09-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a mapping of the Stream Control Transmission
  Protocol (SCTP) into a sockets API.  The benefits of this mapping
  include compatibility for TCP applications, access to new SCTP
  features and a consolidated error and event notification scheme.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-10-06
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy Ballot has been issued
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy Created "Approve" ballot
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy Last Call was requested
2011-09-13
32 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-09-13
32 (System) Last call text was added
2011-09-13
32 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy Last Call text changed
2011-09-13
32 Wesley Eddy State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-09-02
32 Amy Vezza
This is a TSVWG request that "Sockets API
Extensions for Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)"
(<draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt>) be
published as an Standards Track (PS) …
This is a TSVWG request that "Sockets API
Extensions for Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)"
(<draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt>) be
published as an Standards Track (PS) RFC.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> is the Document
Shepherd. I have reviewed this version of the
document, and believe this is ready to forward to the IESG for publication.


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

Yes, key members of the WG have reviewed this document.

There are no concerns with this -31 version of this document.


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

No, I do not have concerns about this document
progressing forward, given the years the draft has been active.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No, there are no additional concerns. There is no
IPR claims that I'm aware of related to 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 WG consensus around this document, with
other WG members being silent. The nature of
TSVWG is an open area WG, with now 7 primary
topics of interest; very few efforts ever get
'strong' WG consensus. That said, consensus was
solidly behind this document with no current
objections or open comments to this doc.

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

No, there was never any threat of appeal wrt this document.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.


I have verified the 1 error is where in which a
old reference (RFC 1644) has been obsoleted by a
new reference (RFC 6247). I believe this is fine,
and will easily be fixed at worst in AUTH48.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are split, the most recent is many years old - therefore robust.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?


The document states that there are no IANA
considerations for this document as it does not
register anything, therefore this section can be
removed by the RFC-Editor during publication processing.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes, I have verified there is no formal language such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. contained within this document.


(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary


The sockets API has provided a standard mapping of the Internet
Protocol suite to many operating systems. Both TCP [RFC0793] and UDP
[RFC0768] have benefited from this standard representation and access
method across many diverse platforms. SCTP is a new protocol that
provides many of the characteristics of TCP but also incorporates
semantics more akin to UDP. This document defines a method to map
the existing sockets API for use with SCTP, providing both a base for
access to new features and compatibility so that most existing TCP
applications can be migrated to SCTP with few (if any) changes.


Working Group Summary

Understanding that 'strong' consensus is nearly
impossible in an open area WG such as TSVWG, with
5-6 sub-groups within this WG divided along
technology focuses -- there is unwavering
consensus in the WG amongst interested parties to
publish this document. It has been reviewed by
several people in the WG last call.

Document Quality

Yes, this SCTP Socket API is implemented in several code bases, namely

FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris by the coauthors

Thomas Dreibholz <dreibh@iem.uni-due.de> in the
well-known SCTPLIB userland SCTP implementation, and in RSPLIB

Irene Rüngeler in the INET framework which is a
widely used part of the OMNeT++ simulation environment.

"Becke, Martin" <martin.becke@uni-due.de> the
described API as co-author of the measurement tool netperfmeter.

Robin Seggelmann <seggelmann@fh-muenster.de>
implemented SCTP support for OpenSSL and the API draft.

Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
(a coauthor) the ID was also used for the SCTP
kernel implementations in HP-UX and AIX. The
FreeBSD implementation has been ported to Windows and Mac OS X.

Jon Leighton <leighton@cis.udel.edu>
implementations including creating SCTP enabled
versions of NSPR, Firefox and Chrome, on multiple platforms.




James Polk is the document Shepherd. David
Harrington is the responsible Area Director.
There are no IANA registrations specified by this document.
2011-09-02
32 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> is the Document Shepherd.' added
2011-09-02
32 Amy Vezza State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching.
2011-08-09
31 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt
2011-06-24
30 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-30.txt
2011-04-23
29 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-29.txt
2011-04-08
28 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-28.txt
2011-04-07
32 Amy Vezza Responsible AD has been changed to Wesley Eddy from Lars Eggert
2011-03-01
27 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-27.txt
2011-01-28
26 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26.txt
2011-01-26
32 Cindy Morgan State changed to AD is watching from Dead.
2011-01-07
25 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-25.txt
2010-10-25
24 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-24.txt
2010-07-12
23 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-23.txt
2010-03-07
22 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-22.txt
2010-02-01
21 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-21.txt
2010-01-19
20 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-20.txt
2009-08-20
32 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2009-08-20
32 (System) Document has expired
2009-02-16
19 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-19.txt
2008-11-03
18 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-18.txt
2008-07-24
32 Cindy Morgan State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-24
32 Cindy Morgan Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2008-07-14
17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-17.txt
2008-02-24
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-16.txt
2008-01-11
32 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2008-01-11
32 (System) Document has expired
2007-07-11
32 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2007-07-10
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-15.txt
2007-06-15
32 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2007-06-15
32 (System) Document has expired
2006-12-13
32 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2006-12-12
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-14.txt
2006-12-11
32 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2006-12-11
32 (System) Document has expired
2006-06-12
32 Lars Eggert Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching
2006-06-09
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-13.txt
2006-02-21
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-12.txt
2005-09-08
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-11.txt
2005-02-23
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-10.txt
2004-09-27
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-09.txt
2004-04-02
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-08.txt
2003-08-25
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-07.txt
2003-03-03
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-06.txt
2002-10-02
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-05.txt
2002-05-15
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-04.txt
2002-01-29
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-03.txt
2001-11-26
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-02.txt
2001-07-23
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-01.txt
2001-06-01
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-00.txt