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 [Ballot discuss] <process weenie> I think based on the IETF's TLP you need to put |
|
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 | |
|
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 |