SCTP Sockets Draft

1
SCTP Sockets Draft

• Status and Issues
• rrs_at_cisco.com

2
Issues/Status

• Examples still have not been filled in.
• Should the draft better specify error return
  codes such as EMSGSIZE etc.
• Is a separate Notification socket needed to
  better help with passing messages that have
  failed to be sent?

3
Issues/Status (Cont.)

• Separate socket conclusions at the authors
  meeting on 12/12/00
• No separate error/notification socket will be
  added.
• A socket option will enable error events
• When a event needs to be read, a recvmsg call
  will fail with a special error.
• To receive the error you will do a subsequent
  rcvmsg and the data will be passed into the
  normal read buffers.

4
More Issues

• Sctp_bindx() may need to be expanded so we can
  better support the UDP style socket.
• Security issues may not be fully complete yet ?

5
More Issues (Cont.)

• Terminology on primary address is confusing and
  stands for clarification
• Sctp_bindx() can ignore port numbers on
  subsequent calls.
• Association Identification needs to be added.
  This will be used in place of a socket address
  (where possible).

6
More Issues (Cont.)

• Do we need a COMM_DOWN and a COMM_CLOSED signal,
  author consensus is no, new mechanism will force
  you to read errors OR in case of tcp model the
  shutdown() call can be used.
• Why are error TLVs passed to application
  probably for future use.

7
Next Steps

• Finish the examples ?.
• Tidy things up and get all suggestions and
  advice of the WG included.
• Trial it in the developing linux kernel version.

8
Next Steps

• Collect and incorporate comments from the working
  group.
• The authors will request a IESG last call for
  informative status when the document matures.
• The authors would like to take the informative
  RFC to posix for inclusion as a posix standard.