Internet Engineering Task Force                               R. Stewart
INTERNET DRAFT                                             Cisco Systems
                                                                  L. Ong
                                                           Ciena Systems
                                                      I. Arias-Rodriguez
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                 K. Poon
                                                        Sun Microsystems

expires in six months                                   November 19 2001                                    January 29 2002

                        SCTP Implementors Guide
                <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt>
                <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-03.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
   November 2001
   January 2002 for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
   [RFC2960]. These defects may be of an editorial or technical nature.
   This document may be thought of as a companion document to be used in
   the implementation of SCTP to clarify errors in the original SCTP
   document.

   This document updates RFC2960 and text within this document
   supersedes the text found in RFC2960.

Table of Contents
   1. Introduction......................................... 2
    1.1 Conventions........................................ 2
   2. Corrections to RFC2960............................... 2
    2.1 Incorrect error type during chunk processing....... 3
    2.2 Parameter processing issue......................... 3
    2.3 Padding issues..................................... 4
    2.4 Parameter types across all chunk types............. 5
    2.5 Stream parameter clarification..................... 7
    2.6 Restarting association security issue.............. 8
    2.7 Implicit ability to exceed cwnd by PMTU-1 bytes....12
    2.8 Issues with Fast Retransmit........................12
    2.9 Missing statement about partial_bytes_acked update.17
    2.10 Issues with Heartbeating and failure detection....18
    2.11 Security interactions with firewalls..............21
    2.12 Shutdown ambiguity................................22
    2.13 Inconsistency in ABORT processing.................24 processing.................23
    2.14 Cwnd gated by its full use in Slow start..........24
    2.15 Window probes in SCTP.............................25
    2.16 Fragmentation and Path MTU issues.................27
   3. Acknowledgments......................................27 Acknowledgments......................................28
   4. Authors' Addresses...................................28 Addresses...................................29
   5. References...........................................28 References...........................................29

1. Introduction

   This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
   November 2001
   January 2002 for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
   [RFC2960]. These defects may be of an editorial or technical nature.
   This document may be thought of as a companion document to be used in
   the implementation of SCTP to clarify errors in the original SCTP
   document.

   This document updates RFC2960 and text within this document, where
   noted, supersedes the text found in RFC2960. Each error will be
   detailed within this document in the form of:

   - The problem description,

   - The text quoted from RFC2960,

   - The replacement text,

   - A description of the solution.

1.1 Conventions

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when
   they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

2. Corrections to RFC2960

2.1 Incorrect error type during chunk processing.

2.1.1 Description of the problem

   A typo was discovered in [RFC2960] that incorrectly specifies an
   action to be taken when processing chunks of unknown identity.

2.1.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.2)
   ---------

   01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process
        any further chunks within it, and report the unrecognized
        parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in either an
        ERROR or in the INIT ACK).

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.2)
   ---------

   01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process
        any further chunks within it, and report the unrecognized
        chunk in an 'Unrecognized Chunk Type'.

2.1.3 Solution description

   The receiver of an unrecognized Chunk should not send a 'parameter'
   error but instead the appropriate chunk error as described above.

2.2 Parameter processing issue

2.2.1 Description of the problem

   A typographical error was introduced through an improper cut
   and paste in the use of the upper two bits to describe proper
   handling of unknown parameters.

2.2.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.2.1)
   ---------

   00 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process
        any further chunks within it.

   01 - Stop processing this SCTP packet and discard it, do not process
        any further chunks within it, and report the unrecognized
        parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in either an
        ERROR or in the INIT ACK).

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.2.1)
   ---------

   00 - Stop processing this SCTP chunk and discard it, do not process
        any further parameters within this chunk.

   01 - Stop processing this SCTP chunk and discard it, do not process
        any further parameters within this chunks, chunk, and report the
        unrecognized parameter in an 'Unrecognized Parameter Type' (in
        either an ERROR or in the INIT ACK).

2.2.3 Solution description

   It was always the intent to stop processing at the level one was at
   in an unknown chunk or parameter with the upper bit set to 0. Thus if
   you are processing a chunk, you should drop the packet. If you are
   processing a parameter, you should drop the chunk.

2.3 Padding issues

2.3.1 Description of the problem

   A problem was found in that when a Chunk terminated in a TLV
   parameter. If this last TLV was not on a 32 bit boundary (as
   required), there was confusion as to if the last padding was included
   in the chunk length.

2.3.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.2)
   ---------

   Chunk Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      This value represents the size of the chunk in bytes including the
      Chunk Type, Chunk Flags, Chunk Length, and Chunk Value fields.
      Therefore, if the Chunk Value field is zero-length, the Length
      field will be set to 4.  The Chunk Length field does not count any
      padding.

   Chunk Value: variable length

      The Chunk Value field contains the actual information to be
      transferred in the chunk.  The usage and format of this field is
      dependent on the Chunk Type.

   The total length of a chunk (including Type, Length and Value fields)
   MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes.  If the length of the chunk is not a
   multiple of 4 bytes, the sender MUST pad the chunk with all zero
   bytes and this padding is not included in the chunk length field.

   The sender should never pad with more than 3 bytes.  The receiver
   MUST ignore the padding bytes.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.2)
   ---------

   Chunk Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      This value represents the size of the chunk in bytes including the
      Chunk Type, Chunk Flags, Chunk Length, and Chunk Value fields.
      Therefore, if the Chunk Value field is zero-length, the Length
      field will be set to 4. The Chunk Length field does not count any
      chunk padding.

      Chunks (including Type, Length and Value fields) are padded out by
      the sender with all zero bytes to be a multiple of 4 bytes long.
      This padding MUST NOT be more than 3 bytes in total. The Chunk
      Length value does not include terminating padding of the Chunk.
      However, it does include padding of any variable length parameter
      except the last parameter in the Chunk. The receiver MUST ignore
      the padding.

      Note: A robust implementation should accept the Chunk whether
      or not the final padding has been included in the Chunk Length.

   Chunk Value: variable length

      The Chunk Value field contains the actual information to be
      transferred in the chunk. The usage and format of this field is
      dependent on the Chunk Type.

2.3.3 Solution description

   The above text makes clear that the padding of the last parameter is
   not included in the Chunk Length field. It also clarifies that the
   padding of parameters that are not the last one must be counted in
   the Chunk Length field.

2.4 Parameter types across all chunk types

2.4.1 Description of the problem

   A problem was noted when multiple errors are needed to be sent
   regarding unknown or unrecognized parameters. Since often times the
   error type does not hold the chunk type field, it may become
   difficult to tell which error was associated with which chunk.

2.4.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.2.1)
   ---------
   The actual SCTP parameters are defined in the specific SCTP chunk
   sections.  The rules for IETF-defined parameter extensions are
   defined in Section 13.2.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.2.1)
   ---------

   The actual SCTP parameters are defined in the specific SCTP chunk
   sections. The rules for IETF-defined parameter extensions are
   defined in Section 13.2. Note that a parameter value type MUST be unique
   across all chunks. For example, the parameter value type '5' is used to
   represent an IPv4 address (see section 3.3.2). The value '5' then is
   reserved across all chunks to represent an IPv4 address and MUST NOT
   be reused with a different meaning in any other chunk.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 13.2)
   ---------

   13.2 IETF-defined Chunk Parameter Extension

   The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
   IETF Consensus action as defined in [RFC2434].  Documentation of the
   chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:

   a) Name of the parameter type.

   b) Detailed description of the structure of the parameter field.
      This structure MUST conform to the general type-length-value
      format described in Section 3.2.1.

   c) Detailed definition of each component of the parameter value. type.

   d) Detailed description of the intended use of this parameter type,
      and an indication of whether and under what circumstances multiple
      instances of this parameter type may be found within the same
      chunk.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 13.2)
   ---------

   13.2 IETF-defined Chunk Parameter Extension

   The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
   IETF Consensus action as defined in [RFC2434]. Documentation of the
   chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:

   a) Name of the parameter type.

   b) Detailed description of the structure of the parameter field. This
      structure MUST conform to the general type-length-value format
      described in Section 3.2.1.

   c) Detailed definition of each component of the parameter value. type.

   d) Detailed description of the intended use of this parameter type,
      and an indication of whether and under what circumstances multiple
      instances of this parameter type may be found within the same
      chunk.

   e) Each parameter type MUST be unique across all chunks.

2.4.3 Solution description

   By having all parameters unique across all chunk assignments (the
   current assignment policy) no ambiguity exists as to what a parameter
   means based on context. The trade off for this is a smaller parameter
   space i.e. 65,535 65,536 parameters versus 65,535 65,536 * Number-of-chunks.

2.5 Stream parameter clarification

2.5.1 Description of the problem

   A problem was found where the specification is unclear on the
   legality of an endpoint asking for more stream resources than were
   allowed in the MIS value of the INIT. In particular the value in the
   INIT ACK requested in its OS value was larger than the MIS value
   received in the INIT chunk. This behavior is illegal yet it was
   unspecified in [RFC2960].

2.5.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.3.3)
   ---------

   Number of Outbound Streams (OS):  16 bits (unsigned integer)

      Defines the number of outbound streams the sender of this INIT ACK
      chunk wishes to create in this association.  The value of 0 MUST
      NOT be used.

      Note: A receiver of an INIT ACK  with the OS value set to 0 SHOULD
      destroy the association discarding its TCB.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.3.3)
   ---------

   Number of Outbound Streams (OS): 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      Defines the number of outbound streams the sender of this INIT ACK
      chunk wishes to create in this association. The value of 0 MUST
      NOT be used and the value MUST NOT be greater than the MIS value
      sent in the INIT chunk.

      Note: A receiver of an INIT ACK with the OS value set to 0 SHOULD
      destroy the association discarding its TCB.

2.5.3 Solution description

   The change in wording, above, changes it so that a responder to an
   INIT chunk does not specify more streams in it's its OS value than was
   represented to it in the MIS value i.e. its maximum.

2.6 Restarting association security issue

2.6.1 Description of the problem

   A security problem was found when a restart occurs. It is possible
   for an intruder to send an INIT to an endpoint of an existing
   association. In the INIT the intruder would list one or more of
   the current addresses of an association and its own. The normal restart
   procedures would then occur and the intruder would have hi-jacked an
   association.

2.6.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.3.10)
   ---------

      Cause Code
      Value           Cause Code
      ---------      ----------------
       1              Invalid Stream Identifier
       2              Missing Mandatory Parameter
       3              Stale Cookie Error
       4              Out of Resource
       5              Unresolvable Address
       6              Unrecognized Chunk Type
       7              Invalid Mandatory Parameter
       8              Unrecognized Parameters
       9              No User Data
      10              Cookie Received While Shutting Down

   Cause Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      Set to the size of the parameter in bytes, including the Cause
      Code, Cause Length, and Cause-Specific Information fields

   Cause-specific Information: variable length

      This field carries the details of the error condition.

   Sections 3.3.10.1 - 3.3.10.10 define error causes for SCTP.
   Guidelines for the IETF to define new error cause values are
   discussed in Section 13.3.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.3.10)
   ---------

      Cause Code
      Value           Cause Code
      ---------      ----------------
       1              Invalid Stream Identifier
       2              Missing Mandatory Parameter
       3              Stale Cookie Error
       4              Out of Resource
       5              Unresolvable Address
       6              Unrecognized Chunk Type
       7              Invalid Mandatory Parameter
       8              Unrecognized Parameters
       9              No User Data
      10              Cookie Received While Shutting Down
      11              Restart of an association with new addresses

   Cause Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      Set to the size of the parameter in bytes, including the Cause
      Code, Cause Length, and Cause-Specific Information fields

   Cause-specific Information: variable length

      This field carries the details of the error condition.

   Sections 3.3.10.1 - 3.3.10.11 define error causes for SCTP.
   Guidelines for the IETF to define new error cause values are
   discussed in Section 13.3.

   ---------
   New text: (Note no old text, new error added in section 3.3.10)
   ---------

   3.3.10.11 Restart of an association with new addresses (11)

    Cause of error
    --------------
    Restart of an association with new addresses: An INIT was received
    on an existing association. But the INIT added addresses to the
    association that were previously NOT part of the association. The
    New addresses are listed in the error code. This ERROR is normally
    sent as part of an ABORT refusing the INIT (see section 5.2).

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Cause Code=11         |      Cause Length=Variable    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                       New Address TLVs                        /
      \                                                               \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ---------
   Old text: (Section 5.2.1)
   ---------

   Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-WAIT or COOKIE-ECHOED state, an
   endpoint MUST respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it
   sent in its original INIT chunk (including its Initiation Tag,
   unchanged).  These original parameters are combined with those from
   the newly received INIT chunk.  The endpoint shall also generate a
   State Cookie with the INIT ACK.  The endpoint uses the parameters
   sent in its INIT to calculate the State Cookie.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 5.2.1)
   ---------

   Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-WAIT state, an endpoint MUST
   respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it sent in its
   original INIT chunk (including its Initiation Tag, unchanged). When
   responding the endpoint MUST send the INIT ACK back to the same
   address that the original INIT (sent by this endpoint) was sent to.

   Upon receipt of an INIT in the COOKIE-ECHOED state, an endpoint MUST
   respond with an INIT ACK using the same parameters it sent in its
   original INIT chunk (including its Initiation Tag, unchanged)
   provided that no NEW address have been added to the forming
   association. If the INIT message indicates that a new address(es)
   have been added to the association, then the entire INIT MUST be
   discarded and NO changes should be made to the existing association.
   An ABORT MUST be sent in response that SHOULD include the error
   'Restart of an association with new addresses'. The error SHOULD list
   the addresses that were added to the restarting association.

   When responding in either state (COOKIE-WAIT or COOKIE-ECHOED) with
   an INIT ACK the original parameters are combined with those from the
   newly received INIT chunk. The endpoint shall also generate a State
   Cookie with the INIT ACK. The endpoint uses the parameters sent in
   its INIT to calculate the State Cookie.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 5.2.2)
   ---------

   5.2.2 Unexpected INIT in States Other than CLOSED, COOKIE-ECHOED,
         COOKIE-WAIT and SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT

   Unless otherwise stated, upon reception of an unexpected INIT for
   this association, the endpoint shall generate an INIT ACK with a
   State Cookie.  In the outbound INIT ACK the endpoint MUST copy its
   current Verification Tag and peer's Verification Tag into a reserved
   place within the state cookie.  We shall refer to these locations as
   the Peer's-Tie-Tag and the Local-Tie-Tag.  The outbound SCTP packet
   containing this INIT ACK MUST carry a Verification Tag value equal to
   the Initiation Tag found in the unexpected INIT.  And the INIT ACK
   MUST contain a new Initiation Tag (randomly generated see Section
   5.3.1).  Other parameters for the endpoint SHOULD be copied from the
   existing parameters of the association (e.g. number of outbound
   streams) into the INIT ACK and cookie.

   After sending out the INIT ACK, the endpoint shall take no further
   actions, i.e., the existing association, including its current state,
   and the corresponding TCB MUST NOT be changed.

   Note: Only when a TCB exists and the association is not in a COOKIE-
   WAIT state are the Tie-Tags populated.  For a normal association INIT
   (i.e. the endpoint is in a COOKIE-WAIT state), the Tie-Tags MUST be
   set to 0 (indicating that no previous TCB existed).  The INIT ACK and
   State Cookie are populated as specified in section 5.2.1.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 5.2.2)
   ---------

   5.2.2 Unexpected INIT in States Other than CLOSED, COOKIE-ECHOED,
         COOKIE-WAIT and SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT

   Unless otherwise stated, upon reception of an unexpected INIT for
   this association, the endpoint shall generate an INIT ACK with a
   State Cookie. Before responding the endpoint MUST check to see if the
   unexpected INIT adds new addresses to the association. If new
   addresses are added to the association, the endpoint MUST respond
   with an ABORT copying the 'Initiation Tag' of the unexpected INIT
   into the 'Verification Tag' of the outbound packet carrying the ABORT.
   In the ABORT response the cause of error SHOULD be set to 'restart
   of an association with new addresses'. The error SHOULD list the
   addresses that were added to the restarting association.

   If no new addresses are added, when responding to the INIT in the
   outbound INIT ACK the endpoint MUST copy its current Verification Tag
   and peer's Verification Tag into a reserved place within the state
   cookie. We shall refer to these locations as the Peer's-Tie-Tag and
   the Local-Tie-Tag. The outbound SCTP packet containing this INIT ACK
   MUST carry a Verification Tag value equal to the Initiation Tag found
   in the unexpected INIT. And the INIT ACK MUST contain a new
   Initiation Tag (randomly generated see Section 5.3.1). Other
   parameters for the endpoint SHOULD be copied from the existing
   parameters of the association (e.g. number of outbound streams) into
   the INIT ACK and cookie.

   After sending out the INIT ACK or ABORT, the endpoint shall take no
   further actions, i.e., the existing association, including its
   current state, and the corresponding TCB MUST NOT be changed.

   Note: Only when a TCB exists and the association is not in a COOKIE-
   WAIT, COOKIE-ECHOED or SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state are the Tie-Tags
   populated with a value other than 0. For a normal association INIT
   (i.e. the endpoint is in the CLOSED state), the Tie-Tags MUST be set
   to 0 (indicating that no previous TCB existed).

2.6.3 Solution description

   A new error code is being added and specific instructions to send
   back an ABORT to a new association in a restart case or collision
   case, where new addresses have been added. The error code can be used
   by a legitimate restart to inform the endpoint that it has made a
   software error in adding a new address. The endpoint then can choose
   to wait until the OOTB ABORT tears down the old association, or
   restart without the new address.

   Also the Note at the end of section 5.2.2 explaining the use of the
   Tie-Tags was modified to properly explain the states in which the
   Tie-Tags should be set to a value different than 0.

2.7 Implicit ability to exceed cwnd by PMTU-1 bytes

2.7.1 Description of the problem

   Some implementations were having difficulty growing their cwnd. This
   was due to an improper enforcement of the congestion control rules.
   The rules, as written, provided for a slop over of the cwnd value.
   Without this slop over the sender would appear to NOT be using its
   full cwnd value and thus never increase it.

2.7.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

   B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a
      given transport address if it has cwnd or more bytes of data
      outstanding to that transport address.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

   B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a
      given transport address if it has cwnd or more bytes of data
      outstanding to that transport address. The sender may exceed cwnd
      by up to (PMTU-1) bytes on a new transmission if the cwnd is not
      currently exceeded.

2.7.3 Solution description

   The text changes make clear the ability to go over the cwnd value by
   no more than (PMTU-1) bytes.

2.8 Issues with Fast Retransmit

2.8.1 Description of the problem

   A problem was found in the current specification of fast retransmit.
   In particular in a high bandwidth * delay network. The current
   wording did not require GAP ACK blocks to be sent, even though they
   are essential to the workings of SCTP's congestion control. Also the
   specification left unclear how to handle the fast retransmit cycle,
   having the implementation to wait on the cwnd to retransmit a TSN
   that was marked for fast retransmit. Also no limit was placed on how
   many times a TSN could be fast retransmitted. When recovering from a
   fast retransmit no burst limit was applied as well to prevent an rwnd
   clamp down from causing an excessive burst of traffic.

2.8.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 6.2)
   ---------

   Acknowledgments MUST be sent in SACK chunks unless shutdown was
   requested by the ULP in which case an endpoint MAY send an
   acknowledgment in the SHUTDOWN chunk.  A SACK chunk can acknowledge
   the reception of multiple DATA chunks.  See Section 3.3.4 for SACK
   chunk format.  In particular, the SCTP endpoint MUST fill in the
   Cumulative TSN Ack field to indicate the latest sequential TSN (of a
   valid DATA chunk) it has received.  Any received DATA chunks with TSN
   greater than the value in the Cumulative TSN Ack field SHOULD also be
   reported in the Gap Ack Block fields.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 6.2)
   ---------

   Acknowledgments MUST be sent in SACK chunks unless shutdown was
   requested by the ULP in which case an endpoint MAY send an
   acknowledgment in the SHUTDOWN chunk. A SACK chunk can acknowledge
   the reception of multiple DATA chunks. See Section 3.3.4 for SACK
   chunk format. In particular, the SCTP endpoint MUST fill in the
   Cumulative TSN Ack field to indicate the latest sequential TSN (of a
   valid DATA chunk) it has received. Any received DATA chunks with TSN
   greater than the value in the Cumulative TSN Ack field MUST also be
   reported in the Gap Ack Block fields.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 7.2.4)
   ---------

   When the TSN(s) is reported as missing in the fourth consecutive
   SACK, the data sender shall:

   1) Mark the missing DATA chunk(s) for retransmission,

   2) Adjust the ssthresh and cwnd of the destination address(es) to
      which the missing DATA chunks were last sent, according to the
      formula described in Section 7.2.3.

   3) Determine how many of the earliest (i.e., lowest TSN) DATA chunks
      marked for retransmission will fit into a single packet, subject
      to constraint of the path MTU of the destination transport address
      to which the packet is being sent.  Call this value K. Retransmit
      those K DATA chunks in a single packet.

   4) Restart T3-rtx timer only if the last SACK acknowledged the lowest
      outstanding TSN number sent to that address, or the endpoint is
      retransmitting the first outstanding DATA chunk sent to that
      address.

   Note: Before the above adjustments, if the received SACK also
   acknowledges new DATA chunks and advances the Cumulative TSN Ack
   Point, the cwnd adjustment rules defined in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2
   must be applied first.

   A straightforward implementation of the above keeps a counter for
   each TSN hole reported by a SACK. The counter increments for each
   consecutive SACK reporting the TSN hole.  After reaching 4 and
   starting the fast retransmit procedure, the counter resets to 0.
   Because cwnd in SCTP indirectly bounds the number of outstanding
   TSN's, the effect of TCP fast-recovery is achieved automatically with
   no adjustment to the congestion control window size.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 7.2.4)
   ---------

   When the TSN(s) is reported as missing in the fourth consecutive
   SACK, the data sender shall:

   1) Mark the missing DATA chunk(s) for retransmission as described
      below in M1-M3,

   2) Adjust the ssthresh and cwnd of the destination address(es) to
      which the missing DATA chunks were last sent, according to the
      formula described in Section 7.2.3.

   3) Determine how many of the earliest (i.e., lowest TSN) DATA chunks
      marked for retransmission will fit into a single packet, subject
      to constraint of the path MTU of the destination transport address
      to which the packet is being sent. Call this value K. Retransmit
      those K DATA chunks in a single packet. When a Fast Retransmit is
      being performed the sender SHOULD ignore the value of cwnd and
      SHOULD NOT delay retransmission.

   4) Restart T3-rtx timer only if the last SACK acknowledged the lowest
      outstanding TSN number sent to that address, or the endpoint is
      retransmitting the first outstanding DATA chunk sent to that
      address.

   5) Mark the DATA chunk(s) as being fast retransmitted and thus
      ineligible for a subsequent fast retransmit. Those TSNs marked
      for retransmission due to the Fast Retransmit algorithm that
      did not fit in the sent datagram carrying K other TSNs are also
      marked as ineligible for a subsequent fast retransmit. However,
      as they are marked for retransmission they will be retransmitted
      later on as soon as cwnd allows.

   5) Mark the DATA chunk(s) as being fast retransmitted and thus
      ineligible for a subsequent fast retransmit.

   Note: Before the above adjustments, if the received SACK also
   acknowledges new DATA chunks and advances the Cumulative TSN Ack
   Point, the cwnd adjustment rules defined in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2
   must be applied first.

   A straightforward implementation of the above is as follows:

   M1) Each time a new DATA chunk is transmitted set the
       'TSN.Missing.Report' count for that TSN to 0. The
       'TSN.Missing.Report' count will be used to determine missing
       segments
       chunks and when to fast retransmit.

   M2) Each time a SACK arrives reporting 'Stray DATA chunk(s)' record
       the highest new TSN reported as newly acknowledged, call this
       value 'HighestTSNinSack'. A newly acknowledged DATA chunk is one
       not previously acknowledged in a SACK.

       When the SCTP sender of data receives a SACK chunk that
       acknowledges, for the first time, the receipt of a DATA chunk,
       all the still unacknowledged DATA chunks whose TSN is older than
       that newly acknowledged DATA chunk, are qualified as
       'Stray DATA chunks'.

   M3) Examine all 'Unacknowledged TSN's', if the TSN number of an
       'Unacknowledged TSN' is smaller than the 'HighestTSNinSack'
       value, increment the 'TSN.Missing.Report' count on that chunk if
       it has NOT been fast retransmitted or marked for fast retransmit
       already.

   M4) If any DATA chunk is found to have a 'TSN.Missing.Report' value
       larger than or equal to 4, mark that chunk for retransmission and
       start the fast retransmit procedure (steps 2-5 above).

   M5) If a T3-rtx timer expires, the 'TSN.Missing.Report' of all
       affected TSNs is set to 0.

   Because cwnd in SCTP indirectly bounds the number of outstanding
   TSN's, the effect of TCP fast-recovery is achieved automatically with
   no adjustment to the congestion control window size.

   Upon acknowledgment of a DATA chunk that has been fast retransmitted,
   the protocol parameter 'Max.Burst' MUST be applied to limit how many
   SCTP packets may be sent upon the completion of SACK processing.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 14)
   ---------

   14. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

   RTO.Initial              - 3  seconds
   RTO.Min                  - 1  second
   RTO.Max                 -  60 seconds
   RTO.Alpha                - 1/8
   RTO.Beta                 - 1/4
   Valid.Cookie.Life        - 60  seconds
   Association.Max.Retrans  - 10 attempts
   Path.Max.Retrans         - 5  attempts (per destination address)
   Max.Init.Retransmits     - 8  attempts
   HB.interval              - 30 seconds

   ---------
   New text: (Section 14)
   ---------

   14. Suggested SCTP Protocol Parameter Values

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

   RTO.Initial              - 3  seconds
   RTO.Min                  - 1  second
   RTO.Max                  - 60 seconds
   Max.Burst                - 4  packets
   RTO.Alpha                - 1/8
   RTO.Beta                 - 1/4
   Valid.Cookie.Life        - 60 seconds
   Association.Max.Retrans  - 10 attempts
   Path.Max.Retrans         - 5  attempts (per destination address)
   Max.Init.Retransmits     - 8  attempts
   HB.Interval              - 30 seconds

2.8.3 Solution description

   The effect of the above wording changes are as follows:

   - It requires with a MUST the sending of GAP Ack blocks instead of
     the current [RFC2960] SHOULD.

   - It allows a TSN being Fast Retransmitted (FR) to be sent only once
     via FR.

   - It ends the delay in awaiting for the flight size to drop when a
     TSN is identified ready to FR.

   - It applies a Max.Burst parameter to prevent a FR from flooding the
     network with packets after rwnd has been clamped to '0' for a
     period of time.

   - It changes the way chunks are marked during fast retransmit, so
     that only new reports are counted (using M1-M4 above).

   These changes will effectively allow SCTP to follow a similar model
   as TCP+SACK in the handling of Fast Retransmit.

2.9 Missing statement about partial_bytes_acked update

2.9.1 Description of the problem

   SCTP uses four control variables to regulate its transmission rate:
   rwnd, cwnd, ssthresh and partial_bytes_acked. Upon detection of
   packet losses from SACK or when the T3-rtx timer expires on an
   address cwnd and ssthresh should be updated as stated in section
   7.2.3. However, that section should also clarify that
   partial_bytes_acked must be updated as well, having to be reset to 0.

2.9.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 7.2.3)
   ---------

   7.2.3 Congestion Control

   Upon detection of packet losses from SACK  (see Section 7.2.4), An
   endpoint should do the following:

      ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU)
      cwnd = ssthresh

   Basically, a packet loss causes cwnd to be cut in half.

   When the T3-rtx timer expires on an address, SCTP should perform slow
   start by:

      ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU)
      cwnd = 1*MTU

   ---------
   New text: (Section 7.2.3)
   ---------

   7.2.3 Congestion Control

   Upon detection of packet losses from SACK (see Section 7.2.4), an
   endpoint should do the following:

      ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU)
      cwnd = ssthresh
      partial_bytes_acked = 0

   Basically, a packet loss causes cwnd to be cut in half.

   When the T3-rtx timer expires on an address, SCTP should perform slow
   start by:

      ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 2*MTU)
      cwnd = 1*MTU
      partial_bytes_acked = 0

2.9.3 Solution description

   The missing text added solves the doubts about what to do with
   partial_bytes_acked in the situations stated in section 7.2.3, making
   clear that along with ssthresh and cwnd, partial_bytes_acked should
   also be updated, having to be reset to 0.

2.10 Issues with Heartbeating and failure detection

2.10.1 Description of the problem

   Five basic problems have been discovered with the current heartbeat
   procedures:

   - The current specification does not specify that you should count a
     failed heartbeat as an error against the overall association.

   - The current specification is un-specific as to when you start
     sending heartbeats and when you should stop.

   - The current specification is un-specific as to when you should
     respond to heartbeats.

   - When responding to a Heartbeat it is unclear what to do if more
     than a single TLV is present.

   - The jitter applied to a heartbeat was meant to be a small
     variance of the RTO and is currently a wide variance due to the
     default delay time and incorrect wording within the RFC.

2.10.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8.1)
   ---------

   8.1 Endpoint Failure Detection

   An endpoint shall keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
   retransmissions to its peer (including retransmissions to all the
   destination transport addresses of the peer if it is multi-homed).
   If the value of this counter exceeds the limit indicated in the
   protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans', the endpoint shall
   consider the peer endpoint unreachable and shall stop transmitting
   any more data to it (and thus the association enters the CLOSED
   state).  In addition, the endpoint shall report the failure to the
   upper layer, and optionally report back all outstanding user data
   remaining in its outbound queue. The association is automatically
   closed when the peer endpoint becomes unreachable.

   The counter shall be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer
   endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK), or a
   HEARTBEAT-ACK is received from the peer endpoint.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8.1)
   ---------

   8.1 Endpoint Failure Detection

   An endpoint shall keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
   retransmissions to its peer (this includes retransmissions to all the
   destination transport addresses of the peer if it is multi-homed),
   including unacknowledged HEARTBEAT Chunks. If the value of this
   counter exceeds the limit indicated in the protocol parameter
   'Association.Max.Retrans', the endpoint shall consider the peer
   endpoint unreachable and shall stop transmitting any more data to it
   (and thus the association enters the CLOSED state). In addition, the
   endpoint shall report the failure to the upper layer, and optionally
   report back all outstanding user data remaining in its outbound
   queue. The association is automatically closed when the peer
   endpoint becomes unreachable.

   The counter shall be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer
   endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK), or a
   HEARTBEAT-ACK is received from the peer endpoint.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   8.3 Path Heartbeat

   By default, an SCTP endpoint shall monitor the reachability of the
   idle destination transport address(es) of its peer by sending a
   HEARTBEAT chunk periodically to the destination transport
   address(es).

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   8.3 Path Heartbeat

   By default, an SCTP endpoint shall monitor the reachability of the
   idle destination transport address(es) of its peer by sending a
   HEARTBEAT chunk periodically to the destination transport
   address(es). HEARTBEAT sending MAY begin upon reaching the
   ESTABLISHED state, and is discontinued after sending either SHUTDOWN
   or SHUTDOWN-ACK. A receiver of a HEARTBEAT MUST respond to a
   HEARTBEAT with a HEARTBEAT-ACK after entering the COOKIE-SENT COOKIE-ECHOED state
   (INIT sender) or the ESTABLISHED state (INIT receiver), up until
   reaching the SHUTDOWN-SENT state (SHUTDOWN sender) or the
   SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state (SHUTDOWN receiver).

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   The receiver of the HEARTBEAT should immediately respond with a
   HEARTBEAT ACK that contains the Heartbeat Information field copied
   from the received HEARTBEAT chunk.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   The receiver of the HEARTBEAT should immediately respond with a
   HEARTBEAT ACK that contains the Heartbeat Information TLV, together
   with any other received TLVs, copied unchanged from the received
   HEARTBEAT chunk.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   On an idle destination address that is allowed to heartbeat, a
   HEARTBEAT chunk is RECOMMENDED to be sent once per RTO of that
   destination address plus the protocol parameter 'HB.interval' , with
   jittering of +/- 50%, and exponential back-off of the RTO if the
   previous HEARTBEAT is unanswered.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8.3)
   ---------

   On an idle destination address that is allowed to heartbeat, a
   HEARTBEAT chunk is RECOMMENDED to be sent once per RTO of that
   destination address plus the protocol parameter 'HB.interval' , with
   jittering of +/- 50% of the RTO value, and exponential back-off
   of the RTO if the previous HEARTBEAT is unanswered.

2.10.3 Solution description

   The above text provides guidance as to how to respond to the five
   issues mentioned in 2.10.1. In particular the wording changes provide
   guidance as to when to start and stop heartbeating, how to respond to
   a heartbeat with extra parameters, and clarifies the error counting
   procedures for the association.

2.11 Security interactions with firewalls

2.11.1 Description of the problem

   When dealing with firewalls it is advantageous to the firewall to be
   able to properly determine the initial startup sequence of a reliable
   transport protocol. With this in mind the following text is to be
   added to SCTP's security section.

2.11.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   New text: (no old text, new section added)
   ---------

   11.4 SCTP interactions with firewalls

   Per [RFC1858], it is helpful for some firewalls if they can inspect
   just the first fragment of a fragmented SCTP packet and unambiguously
   determine whether it corresponds to an INIT chunk. Accordingly, we
   stress the requirements stated in 3.1 that (1) an INIT chunk MUST NOT
   be bundled with any other chunk in a packet, and (2) a packet
   containing an INIT chunk MUST have a zero Verification Tag.
   Furthermore, we require that the receiver of an INIT chunk MUST
   enforce these rules by silently discarding an arriving packet with an
   INIT chunk that is bundled with other chunks.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 17)
   ---------

   17. References

   [RFC768]   Postel, J. (ed.), "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC
              768, August 1980.

   [RFC793]   Postel, J. (ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet hosts - application
              and support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
              1700, October 1994.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 17)
   ---------
   17. References

   [RFC768]   Postel, J. (ed.), "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC
              768, August 1980.

   [RFC793]   Postel, J. (ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet hosts - application
              and support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
              1700, October 1994.

   [RFC1858]  Ziemba, G., Reed, D. and Traina P., "Security
              Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
              October 1995.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

2.11.3 Solution description

   The above text adding a new subsection to the Security Considerations
   section of RFC 2960 makes clear that, to make easier the interaction
   with firewalls, an INIT chunk must not be bundled in any case with
   any other chunk, being this rule enforced by the packet receiver,
   that will silently discard the packets that do not follow this rule.

2.12 Shutdown ambiguity

2.12.1 Description of the problem

   Currently there is an ambiguity between the statements in section 6.2
   and section 9.2. Section 6.2 allows the sending of a SHUTDOWN chunk
   in place of a SACK when the sender is in the process of shutting
   down, while section 9.2 requires both a SHUTDOWN chunk and a SACK
   chunk to be sent.

   Along with this ambiguity there is a problem where in an errant
   SHUTDOWN receiver may fail to stop accepting user data.

2.12.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 9.2)
   ---------

   If there are still outstanding DATA chunks left, the SHUTDOWN
   receiver shall continue to follow normal data transmission procedures
   defined in Section 6 until all outstanding DATA chunks are
   acknowledged; however, the SHUTDOWN receiver MUST NOT accept new data
   from its SCTP user.

   While in SHUTDOWN-SENT state, the SHUTDOWN sender MUST immediately
   respond to each received packet containing one or more DATA chunk(s)
   with a SACK, a SHUTDOWN chunk, and restart the T2-shutdown timer. If
   it has no more outstanding DATA chunks, the SHUTDOWN receiver shall
   send a SHUTDOWN ACK and start a T2-shutdown timer of its own,
   entering the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state.  If the timer expires, the
   endpoint must re-send the SHUTDOWN ACK.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 9.2)
   ---------

   If there are still outstanding DATA chunks left, the SHUTDOWN
   receiver shall continue to follow normal data transmission procedures
   defined in Section 6 until all outstanding DATA chunks are
   acknowledged; however, the SHUTDOWN receiver MUST NOT accept new data
   from its SCTP user.

   While in SHUTDOWN-SENT state, the SHUTDOWN sender MUST immediately
   respond to each received packet containing one or more DATA chunk(s)
   with a SHUTDOWN chunk, and restart the T2-shutdown timer. If a
   SHUTDOWN chunk by itself cannot acknowledge all of the received DATA
   chunks (i.e. there are TSN's that can be acknowledged that are larger
   than the cumulative TSN and thus gaps exist in the TSN sequence) then
   a SACK chunk MUST also be sent.

   The sender of the SHUTDOWN MAY also start an overall guard timer
   'T5-shutdown-guard' to bound the overall time for shutdown sequence.
   At the expiration of this timer the sender SHOULD abort the
   association by sending an ABORT chunk. If the 'T5-shutdown-guard'
   timer is used, it SHOULD be set to the recommended value of 5 times
   'RTO.Max'.

   If the receiver of the SHUTDOWN has no more outstanding DATA chunks,
   the SHUTDOWN receiver shall send a SHUTDOWN ACK and start a
   T2-shutdown timer of its own, entering the SHUTDOWN-ACK-SENT state.
   If the timer expires, the endpoint must re-send the SHUTDOWN ACK.

2.12.3 Solution description

   The above text clarifies the use of a SACK in conjunction with a
   SHUTDOWN chunk. It also adds a guard timer to the SCTP shutdown
   sequence to protect against errant receivers of SHUTDOWN chunks.

2.13 Inconsistency in ABORT processing

2.13.1 Description of the problem
   It was noted that the wording in section 8.5.1 did not give proper
   directions in the use of the 'T bit' with the verification tags.

2.13.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8.5.1)
   ---------

   B) Rules for packet carrying ABORT:

      -  The endpoint shall always fill in the Verification Tag field of
         the outbound packet with the destination endpoint's tag value
         if it is known.

      -  If the ABORT is sent in response to an OOTB packet, the
         endpoint MUST follow the procedure described in Section 8.4.

      -  The receiver MUST accept the packet if the Verification Tag
         matches either its own tag, OR the tag of its peer.  Otherwise,
         the receiver MUST silently discard the packet and take no
         further action.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8.5.1)
   ---------

   B) Rules for packet carrying ABORT:

      -  The endpoint shall always fill in the Verification Tag field of
         the outbound packet with the destination endpoint's tag value
         if it is known.

      -  If the ABORT is sent in response to an OOTB packet, the
         endpoint MUST follow the procedure described in Section 8.4.

      -  The receiver of a ABORT shall accept the packet if the
         Verification Tag field of the packet matches its own tag OR it
         is set to its peer's tag and the T bit is set in the Chunk
         Flags. Otherwise, the receiver MUST silently discard the packet
         and take no further action.

2.13.3 Solution description

   The above text change clarifies that the T bit must be set before an
   implementation looks for the peers tag.

2.14 Cwnd gated by its full use in Slow start

2.14.1 Description of the problem

   The current wording in section 7.2.1 requires that the cwnd only
   be increased if all of the cwnd is being used. The current wording
   however is weak and is not cleary clearly defined.

2.14.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 7.2.1)
   ---------

   o  When cwnd is less than or equal to ssthresh an SCTP endpoint MUST
      use the slow start algorithm to increase cwnd (assuming the
      current congestion window is being fully utilized).  If an
      incoming SACK advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, cwnd MUST be
      increased by at most the lesser of 1) the total size of the
      previously outstanding DATA chunk(s) acknowledged, and 2) the
      destination's path MTU. This protects against the ACK-Splitting
      attack outlined in [SAVAGE99].

   ---------
   New text: (Section 7.2.1)
   ---------

   o  When cwnd is less than or equal to ssthresh an SCTP endpoint MUST
      use the slow start algorithm to increase cwnd only if the
      current congestion window is being fully utilized and an
      incoming SACK advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point. Only when
      these two conditions are met can the cwnd be increased otherwise
      the cwnd MUST not be increased. If these conditions are met then
      cwnd MUST be increased by at most the lesser of 1) the total
      size of the previously outstanding DATA chunk(s) acknowledged,
      and 2) the destination's path MTU. This protects against the
      ACK-Splitting attack outlined in [SAVAGE99].

2.14.3 Solution description

   The above change to the paragraph strengths the rules and makes
   it much more apparent as to the need to block cwnd growth when
   the full cwnd is not being utilized.

2.15 Window probes in SCTP

2.15.1 Description of the problem

   When a receiver clamps its rwnd to 0 to flow control the peer,
   the specification implies that one must continue to accept
   data from the remote peer. This is incorrect and needs
   clearification.
   clarification.

2.15.2 Text changes to the document
   ---------
   Old text: (Section 6.2)
   ---------

   The SCTP endpoint MUST always acknowledge the reception of each valid
   DATA chunk.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 6.2)
   ---------

   The SCTP endpoint MUST always acknowledge the reception of each
   valid DATA chunk even if when the DATA chunk received is outside inside its receive
   window.

   Note:

    When the receiver's advertised window is 0, the receiver MUST drop
    all new incoming DATA chunk and immediately send back a SACK with
    the current receive window and showing only DATA chunks received and
    accepted so far.  The dropped DATA chunk MUST NOT be included in the
    SACK as they were not accepted.  The receiver MUST also have an
    algorithm for advertising its receive window to avoid receiver silly
    window syndrome (SWS) as described in RFC 813.  The algorithm can be
    similar to the one described in Section 4.2.3.3 of RFC 1122.
    Because of receiver SWS avoidance, even when the receiver's internal
    buffer is not full anymore, as long as the advertised window is
    still 0, the receiver MUST still drop all new incoming DATA chunk.

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

   A) At any given time, the data sender MUST NOT transmit new data to
      any destination transport address if its peer's rwnd indicates
      that the peer has no buffer space (i.e. rwnd is 0, see Section
      6.2.1).  However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it
      is 0), the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to
      the receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B below).  This rule
      allows the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender
      missed due to the SACK having been lost in transit from the data
      receiver to the data sender.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

   A) At any given time, the data sender MUST NOT transmit new data to
      any destination transport address if its peer's rwnd indicates
      that the peer has no buffer space (i.e. rwnd is 0, see Section
      6.2.1).  However, regardless of the value of rwnd (including if it
      is 0), the data sender can always have one DATA chunk in flight to
      the receiver if allowed by cwnd (see rule B below).  This rule
      allows the sender to probe for a change in rwnd that the sender
      missed due to the SACK having been lost in transit from the data
      receiver to the data sender.

      When the receiver's advertised window is zero, this probe is called
      a zero window probe.  Note that zero window probe SHOULD only be sent
      when all outstanding DATA chunks have been cumulatively acknowledged
      and no DATA chunk(s) are in flight.  Zero window probing MUST
      be supported.

      When a sender is doing zero window probing, it should not time
      out the association if it continues to receive new packets from
      the receiver.  The reason is that the receiver MAY keep its window
      closed for an indefinite time.  Refer to Section 6.2 on the receiver
      behavior when it advertises a zero window.  The sender SHOULD
      send the first zero window probe after 1 RTO when it detects that
      the receiver has closed its window, and SHOULD increase the probe
      interval exponentially afterwards.  Also note that the cwnd SHOULD
      be adjusted according to Section 7.2.1.  Zero window probing does
      not affect the calculation of cwnd.

      The sender MUST also have algorithm in sending new DATA chunks to
      avoid silly window syndrome (SWS) as described in RFC 813.  The
      algorithm can be similar to the one described in Section 4.2.3.4
      of RFC 1122.

2.15.3 Solution description

   The above allows a receiver to drop new data that arrives
   and yet still requires the receiver to send a SACK showing
   the conditions unchanged (with the possible exception of
   a new a_rwnd) and the dropped chunk as missing. This will
   allow the association to continue until the rwnd condition
   clears.

2.16 Fragmentation and Path MTU issues

2.16.1 Description of the problem

   The current wording of the Fragmentation and Reassembly forces
   an implementation that supports fragmentation to always
   fragment. This prohibits an implementation from offering its
   users an option to disable sends that exceed the SCTP
   fragmentation point.

   The restriction in [RFC2960] section 6.9 was never meant
   to restrict an implementations API from this behavior.

2.16.2 Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

6.9 Fragmentation and Reassembly
   An endpoint MAY support fragmentation when sending DATA chunks, but
   MUST support reassembly when receiving DATA chunks.  If an endpoint
   supports fragmentation, it MUST fragment a user message if the size
   of the user message to be sent causes the outbound SCTP packet size
   to exceed the current MTU.  If an implementation does not support
   fragmentation of outbound user messages, the endpoint must return an
   error to its upper layer and not attempt to send the user message.

   IMPLEMENTATION NOTE:  In this error case, the Send primitive
   discussed in Section 10.1 would need to return an error to the upper
   layer.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 6.1)
   ---------

6.9 Fragmentation and Reassembly

   An endpoint MAY support fragmentation when sending DATA chunks, but
   MUST support reassembly when receiving DATA chunks.  If an endpoint
   supports fragmentation, it MUST fragment a user message if the size
   of the user message to be sent causes the outbound SCTP packet size
   to exceed the current MTU.  If an implementation does not support
   fragmentation of outbound user messages, the endpoint must return an
   error to its upper layer and not attempt to send the user message.

   Note: If an implementation that supports fragmentation makes
   available to its upper layer a mechanism to turn off fragmentation
   it may do so. However in so doing, it MUST react just like an
   implementation that does NOT support fragmentation i.e. it MUST
   reject sends that exceed the current P-MTU.

   IMPLEMENTATION NOTE:  In this error case, the Send primitive
   discussed in Section 10.1 would need to return an error to the upper
   layer.

2.16.3 Solution description

   The above wording will allow an implementation to offer the
   option of rejecting sends that exceed the P-MTU size even
   when the implementation supports fragmentation.

3. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following people that have
   provided comments and input for this document:

   For their comments on the list, Atsushi Fukumoto. Fukumoto, David Lehmann.

   For their participation in the RTP Bakeoff number 2 and all of their
   input, Heinz Prantner, Jan Rovins, Renee Revis, Steven Furniss, Manoj
   Solanki, Mike Turner, Jonathan Lee, Peter Butler, Laurent Glaude, Jon
   Berger, Jon Grim, Dan Harrison, Sabina Torrente, Tomas Orti Martin,
   Jeff Waskow, Robby Benedyk, Steve Dimig, Joe Keller, Ben Robinson,
   David Lehmann, John Hebert, Sanjay Rao, Kausar Hassan, Melissa Campbell,
   Sujith Radhakrishnan, Michael Tuexen, Andreas Jungmaier, Mitch Miers,
   Fred Hasle, Oliver Mayor, Cliff Thomas, Jonathan Wood, Kacheong Poon,
   Sverre Slotte, Wang Xiaopeng, John Townsend, Harsh Bhondwe, Sandeep
   Mahajan, RCMonee, Ken FUJITA, Yuji SUZUKI, Mutsuya IRIE, Sandeep
   Balani, Biren Patel, Qiaobing Xie, Karl Knutson, La Monte Yarroll,
   Gareth Keily, Ian Periam, Nathalie Mouellic, and Stan McClellan.

   For their comments on the list and his detailed analysis and
   simulations of SCTP, Rob Brennan and Thomas Curran.

4. Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   24 Burning Bush Trail.
   Crystal Lake, IL 60012
   USA

   EMail: rrs@cisco.com

   Lyndon Ong
   Ciena Systems
   10480 Ridgeview Ct
   Cupertino, CA 95014
   USA

   EMail: lyong@ciena.com

   Ivan Arias-Rodriguez
   Nokia Research Center
   PO Box 407
   FIN-00045 Nokia Group
   Finland

   EMail: ivan.arias-rodriguez@nokia.com

   Kacheong Poon
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   901 San Antonio Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94303
   USA

   Email: kacheong.poon@sun.com

5. References
   [RFC1858]  Ziemba, G., Reed, D. and Traina P., "Security
              Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
              October 1995.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2960]  R. R. Stewart, Q. Xie, K. Morneault, C. Sharp, H. J.
              Schwarzbauer, T. Taylor, I. Rytina, M. Kalla, L. Zhang,
              and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol,"
              RFC 2960, October 2000.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.