Subject: Re: sctp_peeloff()

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:37:11 -0600

On Dec 22, 2003, at 9:51 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> when you provide per stream buffer, then you must make sure that
> you have buffer for all streams. If only one steam runs out of buffer
> than you have a problem.
>
> Best regards
> Michael

I agree. Any API providing per-stream buffering should make it
difficult or even impossible to provide buffers for *some* of
the streams while making other streams wait for buffers to be
provided later.

Not meeting that criteria leaves the application vulnerable to
more subtle errors, and slightly increases the complexity of the
API layer code that must determine if a message is deliverable
in that the availability of a target buffer must be checked
in a stream/ordered-vs-unordered fashion. If there is *always*
a buffer for *any* message, or no buffers at all, the logic
can be slightly simpler for both client and API implementation.