Dear all,
Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even remotely. I
just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the question of RFC
6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on only RFC 4960 and
not on RFC 6458?" - was brought up several times.
A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below):
>
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even
> remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the
> question of RFC 6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on
> only
On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> GF: From a TSVWG Chair perspective, beware here... *ALL* more recent IETF
> SCTP API work from TSVWG is INFO. Each SCTP RFC is expected to have an
> informative section that describes the API together with the normative
> protocol spec. That
On 11/3/2015 10:37 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
> HI Joe,
>
> Yes I agree. But still there are finer features and BCP for api
> and protocol implementations that have appeared from the api's defined
> outside of the IETF and for which one need to look outside of RFC docs.
Oh, I was
HI Joe,
Yes I agree. But still there are finer features and BCP for api
and protocol implementations that have appeared from the api's defined
outside of the IETF and for which one need to look outside of RFC docs.
Or for PUSH bit one can also look at RFC1122 which describes it as
optional.
BR,
