Subject: RE: New PR-SCTP draft.

From: "Sellar, Ronnie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:57:53 +0100

Randall,

Agreed, a note to say send a SACK then discard the F-TSN would be fine.

Ronnie

---
Ronnie Sellar			Artesyn Communications Products
Tel: +44 131 475 7015		Suite 4, 2 Anderson Place
Fax: +44 131 475 7001		Edinburgh EH6 5NP
mailto:[email-masked]	http://www.artesyncp.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Stewart (cisco) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 15 May 2003 15:07
> To: Sellar, Ronnie
> Cc: Shearer, Gavin; Sctp-Impl (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: New PR-SCTP draft.
> 
> 
> Sellar, Ronnie wrote:
> 
> >Randall,
> >
> >I've had a look at the new draft and wondered if one 
> paragraph should now be
> >removed.  The paragraph is in section 3.6 dealing with the 
> handling of
> >FORWARD-TSN chunks.  It states that if the "New Cumulative 
> TSN" is less than
> >your current cumulative TSN you should silently discard the chunk.
> >
> >Now that we require F-TSNs to be sacked is this not just an 
> indication that
> >perhaps your SACK has gone missing and that you may need to 
> resend it.  Just
> >as if you'd received duplicate data.  Silently discarding 
> the chunk may lead
> >to the situation we were trying to avoid by using SACKs.
> >
> Ronnie:
> 
> Excellent point.. we really need to not discard the paragraph but
> maybe instead specify that you need to respond with a SACK.
> 
> R
> 
> 
> >
> >Ronnie 
> >---
> >Ronnie Sellar			Artesyn Communications Products
> >Tel: +44 131 475 7015		Suite 4, 2 Anderson Place
> >Fax: +44 131 475 7001		Edinburgh EH6 5NP
> >mailto:[email-masked]	http://www.artesyncp.com
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Randall R. Stewart
> ITD
> Cisco Systems Inc.
> [email-masked] 815-342-5222(cell) or 815-477-2127(office)
> 
> 
>