Transmission of RsvdULP in each segment or an RDDP message
"Barry Reinhold" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <002c01c3aa32$241e2d30$467fa8c0@i8600> |
Folks,
I'm playing a bit a catch up here and may be exhuming old
bodies, but could someone motivate the rational behind this pp?
The RsvdULP field is opaque to the DDP protocol and can be
structured in any way by the ULP. At the Data Source, DDP MUST
set RsvdULP Field to the value specified by the ULP. It is
transferred unmodified from the Data Source to the Data Sink.
At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the RsvdULP field to the ULP
when the DDP Message is delivered. Each DDP Segment within a
specific DDP Message MUST contain the same value for this
field.
In particular I don't understand the motivation for the last sentence.
>From a conformance point of view I have to test this statement for both
the xmitter and receiver. For the receiver this would be done by
generating a DDP message with N DDP segments. I would then run N trials
in which one of the N segments has a modified RsvdULP field in the
header. This would verify that the receiving DDP entity checked the
field (The receiver check has to be done given the MUST -- since MUST is
only used for requirements that impact interoperability - this is an
implicit rule that the receiver checks or uses this -- otherwise it
doesn't impact interoperability). I'm sure people are not planning on
having their receiver code check this.
I think a better way to write this would be to have the receiver only
look at this field when the L bit is set. If the L bit is not set the
field should be ignored.
If there is some other requirement that forces this field to be valid
for each segment in a message it would make sense to word this so that
the requirement is only on the transmitter. (i.e. the transmitter MUST)
Barry Reinhold
Lamprey Networks
[email protected]
(603) 868-8411