Draft:  draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-06
Reviewer: Gray, Eric [Eric.Gray@marconi.com]
Review Date: Wednesday 8/9/2006 2:29 PM CST
IETF LC Date: 8/9/2006

Summary: I have one minor question/issue and a few editorial NITs to point
out as part of this last call review.

Comments/Questions/Issues
=========================

Section 7.2 seems incomplete.  From the text, it appears that support for 
multiple IP addresses is allowed by this proposal.  However, for this to 
work, this would need to be something that both SCTP end-points are able 
to handle, or it should not be done by either.  How is this "capability" 
negotiated?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NITs
----

One term is not used consistently in this document: DDP-SSN.  It is expanded
as (DDP) "Source Stream Sequence" (in its definition), as "Stream Sequence"
(in the defintion of "DDP Segment Chunk") and "Source Sequence Number" (in 
sections 5.2.1 and 6).  In all of these places, it probably should have been
(DDP) "Stream Sequence Number" as it is obviously analogous to "STCP Stream
Sequence Number" (which - AFAIK - is used consistently this way in the
draft)
based on the following excerpt:

"The DDP-SSN MUST have the same value that the SCTP Stream Sequence Number 
 (SSN) would have been assigned had ordered SCTP Payload Data Chunks been 
 used rather than unordered."

On that basis, I suggest changing all expansions of DDP-SSN to either omit
the expansion (relying on the fact that is is provided in the definitions 
section) or replace the expansion with "DDP Stream Sequence Number".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following terms and/or acronyms should be added to section 2
(Definitions):

LLP - this is expanded as "lower layer protocol" (I believe it should 
be "Lower Level Protocol entity") in section 4 but occurs in earlier 
text unexpanded.

ULP - this is not expanded anywhere but I assume it is meant to be 
"Upper Layer (or Level) Protocol (entity)."  This term appears in the 
draft almost as often as the definite article "the".

MPA - This term is used in the expansion of "MULPDU" (section 5.2.2) 
but is not itself expanded anywhere in the draft.

MULPDU - this is expanded as "MPA Upper Layer PDU" in section 5.2.2 
but is used in the definition of "DDP Segment" in section 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the definition of "SCTP endpoint" - in section 2 - you use "a SCTP port"
in one line and "an SCTP endpoint" in the next.  Shouldn't it be 
consistently one or the other ("a" or "an")?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 5.2.3, the second paragraph - first sentence - should read:

"ULP supplied Private Data MUST be included for DDP Stream Session Initiate,
DDP Stream Session Accept and DDP Stream Session Reject messages." 
(Comma inserted after "Initiate")

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would help if the 3rd paragraph in section 6.6 were reworded to use a bit
more precise terminology.  Currently, it says:

"This MAY be determined by SCTP acking of the Data Chunk used to carry the
 DDP Stream Session Initiate message, or by receipt of a responsive DDP 
 Stream Session Control message."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume that it should be "Stream Identifier" (rather than simply "Stream")
in the 4th paragraph of the same section (6.6).  Currently it says:

"A DDP Stream MUST NOT be re-used for another DDP Stream Session while any 
 Data Chunk from a prior session might be outstanding."