File: rfc8540.html

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20201128-1
links: PTS, VCS
area: non-free
in suites: bullseye
size: 1,307,124 kB
file content (5261 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 223,772 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Stewart
Request for Comments: 8540                                 Netflix, Inc.
Category: Informational                                        M. Tuexen
ISSN: 2070-1721                         Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
                                                              M. Proshin
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           February 2019


                 <span class="h1">Stream Control Transmission Protocol:</span>
                     <span class="h1">Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a></span>

Abstract

   This document is a compilation of issues found since the publication
   of <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a> in September 2007, based on experience with implementing,
   testing, and using the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
   along with the suggested fixes.  This document provides deltas to <a href="./rfc4960">RFC</a>
   <a href="./rfc4960">4960</a> and is organized in a time-ordered way.  The issues are listed
   in the order in which they were brought up.  Because some text is
   changed several times, the last delta in the text is the one that
   should be applied.  In addition to the deltas, a description of each
   problem and the details of the solution for each are also provided.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of RFC 7841</a>.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8540">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8540</a>.












<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-3">3</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>.  Corrections to <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
     <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Path Error Counter Threshold Handling . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
     <a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Upper-Layer Protocol Shutdown Request Handling  . . . . .   <a href="#page-5">5</a>
     <a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>.  Registration of New Chunk Types . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
     <a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>.  Variable Parameters for INIT Chunks . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
     <a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>.  CRC32c Sample Code on 64-Bit Platforms  . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
     <a href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>.  Endpoint Failure Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-9">9</a>
     <a href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>.  Data Transmission Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
     <a href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>.  T1-Cookie Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-11">11</a>
     <a href="#section-3.9">3.9</a>.  Miscellaneous Typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-12">12</a>
     <a href="#section-3.10">3.10</a>. CRC32c Sample Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-3.11">3.11</a>. partial_bytes_acked after T3-rtx Expiration . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-3.12">3.12</a>. Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd  . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-3.13">3.13</a>. HEARTBEAT ACK and the Association Error Counter . . . . .  <a href="#page-21">21</a>
     <a href="#section-3.14">3.14</a>. Path for Fast Retransmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-22">22</a>
     <a href="#section-3.15">3.15</a>. Transmittal in Fast Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-23">23</a>
     <a href="#section-3.16">3.16</a>. Initial Value of ssthresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-24">24</a>
     <a href="#section-3.17">3.17</a>. Automatically CONFIRMED Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-25">25</a>
     <a href="#section-3.18">3.18</a>. Only One Packet after Retransmission Timeout  . . . . . .  <a href="#page-26">26</a>
     <a href="#section-3.19">3.19</a>. INIT ACK Path for INIT in COOKIE-WAIT State . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-27">27</a>
     <a href="#section-3.20">3.20</a>. Zero Window Probing and Unreachable Primary Path  . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-3.21">3.21</a>. Normative Language in <a href="./rfc4960#section-10">Section&nbsp;10 of RFC 4960</a>  . . . . . .  <a href="#page-29">29</a>
     3.22. Increase of partial_bytes_acked in Congestion Avoidance .  32
     <a href="#section-3.23">3.23</a>. Inconsistent Handling of Notifications  . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
     <a href="#section-3.24">3.24</a>. SACK.Delay Not Listed as a Protocol Parameter . . . . . .  <a href="#page-37">37</a>
     <a href="#section-3.25">3.25</a>. Processing of Chunks in an Incoming SCTP Packet . . . . .  <a href="#page-39">39</a>
     <a href="#section-3.26">3.26</a>. Increasing the cwnd in the Congestion Avoidance Phase . .  <a href="#page-41">41</a>
     <a href="#section-3.27">3.27</a>. Refresh of cwnd and ssthresh after Idle Period  . . . . .  <a href="#page-43">43</a>
     <a href="#section-3.28">3.28</a>. Window Updates after Receiver Window Opens Up . . . . . .  <a href="#page-45">45</a>



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


     <a href="#section-3.29">3.29</a>. Path of DATA and Reply Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-46">46</a>
     3.30. "Outstanding Data", "Flightsize", and "Data in Flight"
           Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-47">47</a>
     <a href="#section-3.31">3.31</a>. Degradation of cwnd due to Max.Burst  . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-49">49</a>
     <a href="#section-3.32">3.32</a>. Reduction of RTO.Initial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-50">50</a>
     <a href="#section-3.33">3.33</a>. Ordering of Bundled SACK and ERROR Chunks . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-51">51</a>
     <a href="#section-3.34">3.34</a>. Undefined Parameter Returned by RECEIVE Primitive . . . .  <a href="#page-52">52</a>
     <a href="#section-3.35">3.35</a>. DSCP Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-53">53</a>
     <a href="#section-3.36">3.36</a>. Inconsistent Handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 Messages . . .  <a href="#page-55">55</a>
     <a href="#section-3.37">3.37</a>. Handling of Soft Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-56">56</a>
     <a href="#section-3.38">3.38</a>. Honoring cwnd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-57">57</a>
     <a href="#section-3.39">3.39</a>. Zero Window Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-58">58</a>
     <a href="#section-3.40">3.40</a>. Updating References regarding ECN . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-60">60</a>
     <a href="#section-3.41">3.41</a>. Host Name Address Parameter Deprecated  . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-62">62</a>
     3.42. Conflicting Text regarding the 'Supported Address Types'
           Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-66">66</a>
     <a href="#section-3.43">3.43</a>. Integration of <a href="./rfc6096">RFC 6096</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-67">67</a>
     <a href="#section-3.44">3.44</a>. Integration of <a href="./rfc6335">RFC 6335</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-70">70</a>
     <a href="#section-3.45">3.45</a>. Integration of <a href="./rfc7053">RFC 7053</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-72">72</a>
     <a href="#section-3.46">3.46</a>. CRC32c Code Improvements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-76">76</a>
     <a href="#section-3.47">3.47</a>. Clarification of Gap Ack Blocks in SACK Chunks  . . . . .  <a href="#page-87">87</a>
     <a href="#section-3.48">3.48</a>. Handling of SSN Wraparounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-89">89</a>
     <a href="#section-3.49">3.49</a>. Update to <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> Boilerplate Text . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-90">90</a>
     <a href="#section-3.50">3.50</a>. Removal of Text (Previously Missed in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>) . . . . .  <a href="#page-91">91</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-91">91</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-92">92</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-92">92</a>
     <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-92">92</a>
     <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-92">92</a>
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-94">94</a>
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-94">94</a>

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   This document contains a compilation of all defects for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>]
   ("Stream Control Transmission Protocol") that were found up until the
   publication of this document.  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 the Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) to clarify errors in the original SCTP
   document.

   This document provides a history of the changes that will be compiled
   into a bis document for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].  It is structured similarly to
   [<a href="./rfc4460" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues&quot;">RFC4460</a>].






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   Each error will be detailed within this document in the form of:

   o  The problem description,

   o  The text quoted from [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>],

   o  The replacement text that should be placed into an upcoming bis
      document, and

   o  A description of the solution.

   Note that when reading this document one must use care to ensure that
   a field or item is not updated later on within the document.  Since
   this document is a historical record of the sequential changes that
   have been found necessary at various interop events and through
   discussion on the Transport Area Working Group mailing list, the last
   delta in the text is the one that should be applied.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Conventions</span>

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title="&quot;Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words&quot;">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Corrections to <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a></span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Path Error Counter Threshold Handling</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The handling of the 'Path.Max.Retrans' parameter is described in
   Sections <a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a> and <a href="#section-8.3">8.3</a> of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] in an inconsistent way.  Whereas
   <a href="./rfc4960#section-8.2">Section&nbsp;8.2 of [RFC4960]</a> says that a path is marked inactive when the
   path error counter exceeds the threshold, <a href="./rfc4960#section-8.3">Section&nbsp;8.3 of [RFC4960]</a>
   says that the path is marked inactive when the path error counter
   reaches the threshold.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 1440.










<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   When the value of this counter reaches the protocol parameter
   'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may also
   optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
   this destination address.  After this, the endpoint should continue
   HEARTBEAT on this destination address but should stop increasing the
   counter.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   When the value of this counter exceeds the protocol parameter
   'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint SHOULD mark the corresponding
   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked and MAY also
   optionally report to the upper layer the change in reachability of
   this destination address.  After this, the endpoint SHOULD continue
   HEARTBEAT on this destination address but SHOULD stop increasing the
   counter.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.23">Section 3.23</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The intended state change should happen when the threshold is
   exceeded.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Upper-Layer Protocol Shutdown Request Handling</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.1" href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-9.2">Section&nbsp;9.2 of [RFC4960]</a> describes the handling of received SHUTDOWN
   chunks in the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state instead of the handling of
   shutdown requests from its upper layer in this state.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 1574.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.2" href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   Once an endpoint has reached the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, it MUST NOT
   send a SHUTDOWN in response to a ULP request, and should discard
   subsequent SHUTDOWN chunks.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   Once an endpoint has reached the SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED state, it MUST
   ignore ULP shutdown requests but MUST continue responding to SHUTDOWN
   chunks from its peer.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.3" href="#section-3.2.3">3.2.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The text never intended that the SCTP endpoint ignore SHUTDOWN chunks
   from its peer.  If it did, the endpoints could never gracefully
   terminate associations in some cases.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>.  Registration of New Chunk Types</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.1" href="#section-3.3.1">3.3.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-14.1">Section&nbsp;14.1 of [RFC4960]</a> should deal with new chunk types; however,
   the text only refers to parameter types.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 2592.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.2" href="#section-3.3.2">3.3.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-14.1">Section 14.1</a>)
   ---------

   The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through an
   IETF Consensus action, as defined in [<a href="./rfc2434">RFC2434</a>].  Documentation of the
   chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-14.1">Section 14.1</a>)
   ---------

   The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an IETF
   Consensus action, as defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].  Documentation for the
   chunk type MUST contain the following information:

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.43">Section 3.43</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.3" href="#section-3.3.3">3.3.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text refers to chunk types as intended and changes the
   reference to [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>.  Variable Parameters for INIT Chunks</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4.1" href="#section-3.4.1">3.4.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   In <a href="./rfc4960#section-3.3.2">Section&nbsp;3.3.2 of [RFC4960]</a>, newlines in wrong places break the
   layout of the table of variable parameters for the INIT chunk.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 3291 and Errata ID 3804.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4.2" href="#section-3.4.2">3.4.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2">Section 3.3.2</a>)
   ---------

   Variable Parameters                  Status     Type Value
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   IPv4 Address (Note 1)               Optional    5 IPv6 Address
   (Note 1)               Optional    6 Cookie Preservative
   Optional    9 Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2)   Optional
   32768 (0x8000) Host Name Address (Note 3)          Optional
   11 Supported Address Types (Note 4)    Optional    12












<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2">Section 3.3.2</a>)
   ---------

   Variable Parameters                  Status     Type Value
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   IPv4 Address (Note 1)               Optional    5
   IPv6 Address (Note 1)               Optional    6
   Cookie Preservative                 Optional    9
   Reserved for ECN Capable (Note 2)   Optional    32768 (0x8000)
   Host Name Address (Note 3)          Optional    11
   Supported Address Types (Note 4)    Optional    12

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4.3" href="#section-3.4.3">3.4.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The formatting of the table is corrected.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>.  CRC32c Sample Code on 64-Bit Platforms</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5.1" href="#section-3.5.1">3.5.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The sample code for CRC32c computation, as provided in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>],
   assumes that a variable of type unsigned long uses 32 bits.  This is
   not true on some 64-bit platforms (for example, platforms that
   use LP64).

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 3423.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5.2" href="#section-3.5.2">3.5.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   unsigned long
   generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     unsigned int i;
     unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   unsigned long
   generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     unsigned int i;
     unsigned long crc32 = 0xffffffffL;

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.10">Section 3.10</a> and again in <a href="#section-3.46">Section 3.46</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5.3" href="#section-3.5.3">3.5.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text uses 0xffffffffL instead of ~0L; this gives the same
   value on platforms using 32 bits or 64 bits for variables of type
   unsigned long.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6" href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>.  Endpoint Failure Detection</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6.1" href="#section-3.6.1">3.6.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The handling of the association error counter defined in <a href="./rfc4960#section-8.1">Section&nbsp;8.1
   of [RFC4960]</a> can result in an association failure even if the path
   used for data transmission is available (but idle).

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 3788.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6.2" href="#section-3.6.2">3.6.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   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.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint SHOULD keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
   retransmissions to its peer (this includes data retransmissions to
   all the destination transport addresses of the peer if it is



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                     [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   multi-homed), including the number of unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks
   observed on the path that is currently used for data transfer.
   Unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks observed on paths different from the
   path currently used for data transfer SHOULD NOT increment the
   association error counter, as this could lead to association closure
   even if the path that is currently used for data transfer is
   available (but idle).

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.23">Section 3.23</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6.3" href="#section-3.6.3">3.6.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   A more refined handling of the association error counter is defined.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7" href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>.  Data Transmission Rules</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7.1" href="#section-3.7.1">3.7.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   When integrating the changes to <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A) of [<a href="./rfc2960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC2960</a>] as
   described in <a href="./rfc4460#section-2.15.2">Section&nbsp;2.15.2 of [RFC4460]</a>, some text was duplicated
   and became the final paragraph of <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A) of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 4071.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7.2" href="#section-3.7.2">3.7.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A))
   ---------

   The sender MUST also have an algorithm for sending new DATA chunks to
   avoid silly window syndrome (SWS) as described in [<a href="./rfc0813">RFC0813</a>].  The
   algorithm can be similar to the one described in <a href="./rfc1122#section-4.2.3.4">Section&nbsp;4.2.3.4 of
   [RFC1122]</a>.

   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.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A))
   ---------

   The sender MUST also have an algorithm for sending new DATA chunks to
   avoid silly window syndrome (SWS) as described in [<a href="./rfc1122" title="&quot;Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers&quot;">RFC1122</a>].  The
   algorithm can be similar to the algorithm described in
   <a href="./rfc1122#section-4.2.3.4">Section&nbsp;4.2.3.4 of [RFC1122]</a>.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7.3" href="#section-3.7.3">3.7.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The last paragraph of <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A) is removed, as had been intended
   in <a href="./rfc4460#section-2.15.2">Section&nbsp;2.15.2 of [RFC4460]</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.8" href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>.  T1-Cookie Timer</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.8.1" href="#section-3.8.1">3.8.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   Figure 4 of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] illustrates the SCTP association setup.
   However, it incorrectly shows that the T1-init timer is used in the
   COOKIE-ECHOED state, whereas the T1-cookie timer should have been
   used instead.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 4400.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.8.2" href="#section-3.8.2">3.8.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.1.6">Section 5.1.6</a>, Figure 4)
   ---------

   COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
   (Start T1-init timer)         \
   (Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state)    \---&gt; (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
                                         state)
                                  /---- COOKIE-ACK
                                 /
   (Cancel T1-init timer, &lt;-----/
    Enter ESTABLISHED state)








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.1.6">Section 5.1.6</a>, Figure 4)
   ---------

   COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
   (Start T1-cookie timer)       \
   (Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state)    \---&gt; (build TCB, enter ESTABLISHED
                                         state)
                                  /---- COOKIE-ACK
                                 /
   (Cancel T1-cookie timer, &lt;---/
    enter ESTABLISHED state)

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.9">Section 3.9</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.8.3" href="#section-3.8.3">3.8.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The figure is changed such that the T1-cookie timer is used instead
   of the T1-init timer.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.9" href="#section-3.9">3.9</a>.  Miscellaneous Typos</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.9.1" href="#section-3.9.1">3.9.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   While processing [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>], some typos were not caught.

   One typo was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with Errata ID 5003.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.9.2" href="#section-3.9.2">3.9.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-1.6">Section 1.6</a>)
   ---------

   Transmission Sequence Numbers wrap around when they reach 2**32 - 1.
   That is, the next TSN a DATA chunk MUST use after transmitting TSN =
   2*32 - 1 is TSN = 0.













<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-1.6">Section 1.6</a>)
   ---------

   Transmission Sequence Numbers wrap around when they reach 2**32 - 1.
   That is, the next TSN a DATA chunk MUST use after transmitting
   TSN = 2**32 - 1 is TSN = 0.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.10.9">Section 3.3.10.9</a>)
   ---------

   No User Data: This error cause is returned to the originator of a

   DATA chunk if a received DATA chunk has no user data.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.10.9">Section 3.3.10.9</a>)
   ---------

   No User Data: This error cause is returned to the originator of a
   DATA chunk if a received DATA chunk has no user data.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.7">Section 6.7</a>, Figure 9)
   ---------

   Endpoint A                                    Endpoint Z {App
   sends 3 messages; strm 0} DATA [TSN=6,Strm=0,Seq=2] ----------
   -----&gt; (ack delayed) (Start T3-rtx timer)

   DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] --------&gt; X (lost)

   DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ---------------&gt; (gap detected,
                                               immediately send ack)
                                   /----- SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=1,
                                  /             Start=2,End=2]
                           &lt;-----/ (remove 6 from out-queue,
    and mark 7 as "1" missing report)






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.7">Section 6.7</a>, Figure 9)
   ---------

   Endpoint A                                    Endpoint Z
   {App sends 3 messages; strm 0}
   DATA [TSN=6,Strm=0,Seq=2] ---------------&gt; (ack delayed)
   (Start T3-rtx timer)

   DATA [TSN=7,Strm=0,Seq=3] --------&gt; X (lost)

   DATA [TSN=8,Strm=0,Seq=4] ---------------&gt; (gap detected,
                                               immediately send ack)
                                   /----- SACK [TSN Ack=6,Block=1,
                                  /             Start=2,End=2]
                           &lt;-----/
   (remove 6 from out-queue,
    and mark 7 as "1" missing report)

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.10">Section 6.10</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint bundles chunks by simply including multiple chunks in one
   outbound SCTP packet.  The total size of the resultant IP datagram,

   including the SCTP packet and IP headers, MUST be less that or equal
   to the current Path MTU.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.10">Section 6.10</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint bundles chunks by simply including multiple chunks in one
   outbound SCTP packet.  The total size of the resultant IP datagram,
   including the SCTP packet and IP headers, MUST be less than or equal
   to the current Path MTU (PMTU).

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> O))
   ---------

   o  Receive Unacknowledged Message

      Format: RECEIVE_UNACKED(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer
              size, [,stream id] [, stream sequence number] [,partial
              flag] [,payload protocol-id])

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> O))
   ---------

   O) Receive Unacknowledged Message

      Format: RECEIVE_UNACKED(data retrieval id, buffer address, buffer
              size [,stream id] [,stream sequence number] [,partial
              flag] [,payload protocol-id])

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> M))
   ---------

   M) Set Protocol Parameters

      Format: SETPROTOCOLPARAMETERS(association id,
              [,destination transport address,]
              protocol parameter list)

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> M))
   ---------

   M) Set Protocol Parameters

      Format: SETPROTOCOLPARAMETERS(association id,
              [destination transport address,]
              protocol parameter list)

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP2) An implementation MAY ignore all ICMPv6 messages where the
          type field is not "Destination Unreachable", "Parameter
          Problem",, or "Packet Too Big".

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP2) An implementation MAY ignore all ICMPv6 messages where the
          type field is not "Destination Unreachable", "Parameter
          Problem", or "Packet Too Big".

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP7) If the ICMP message is either a v6 "Packet Too Big" or a v4
          "Fragmentation Needed", an implementation MAY process this
          information as defined for PATH MTU discovery.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP7) If the ICMP message is either a v6 "Packet Too Big" or a v4
          "Fragmentation Needed", an implementation MAY process this
          information as defined for PMTU discovery.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>)
   ---------

   2)  For the receiver of the COOKIE ECHO, the only CONFIRMED address
      is the one to which the INIT-ACK was sent.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>)
   ---------

   2)  For the receiver of the COOKIE ECHO, the only CONFIRMED address
       is the address to which the INIT ACK was sent.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.1.6">Section 5.1.6</a>, Figure 4)
   ---------

   COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
   (Start T1-init timer)         \
   (Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state)    \---&gt; (build TCB enter ESTABLISHED
                                         state)
                                  /---- COOKIE-ACK
                                 /
   (Cancel T1-init timer, &lt;-----/
    Enter ESTABLISHED state)

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.1.6">Section 5.1.6</a>, Figure 4)
   ---------

   COOKIE ECHO [Cookie_Z] ------\
   (Start T1-cookie timer)       \
   (Enter COOKIE-ECHOED state)    \---&gt; (build TCB, enter ESTABLISHED
                                         state)
                                  /---- COOKIE ACK
                                 /
   (Cancel T1-cookie timer, &lt;---/
    enter ESTABLISHED state)

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.8">Section 3.8</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.2.5">Section 5.2.5</a>)
   ---------

   5.2.5.  Handle Duplicate COOKIE-ACK.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.2.5">Section 5.2.5</a>)
   ---------

   5.2.5.  Handle Duplicate COOKIE ACK.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   By default, an SCTP endpoint SHOULD 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-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).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   By default, an SCTP endpoint SHOULD 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-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).

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.9.3" href="#section-3.9.3">3.9.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   Several typos have been fixed.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.10" href="#section-3.10">3.10</a>.  CRC32c Sample Code</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.10.1" href="#section-3.10.1">3.10.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The CRC32c computation is described in <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-B">Appendix&nbsp;B of [RFC4960]</a>.
   However, the corresponding sample code and its explanation appear at
   the end of <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-C">Appendix&nbsp;C of [RFC4960]</a>, which deals with ICMP handling.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.10.2" href="#section-3.10.2">3.10.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   The text in <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-C">Appendix&nbsp;C of [RFC4960]</a>, starting with the following
   sentence, needs to be moved to the end of <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.

      The following non-normative sample code is taken from an
      open-source CRC generator [WILLIAMS93], using the "mirroring"
      technique and yielding a lookup table for SCTP CRC32c with
      256 entries, each 32 bits wide.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.5">Section 3.5</a>.  It is further updated in
   <a href="#section-3.46">Section 3.46</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.10.3" href="#section-3.10.3">3.10.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The text is moved to the appropriate location.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.11" href="#section-3.11">3.11</a>.  partial_bytes_acked after T3-rtx Expiration</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.11.1" href="#section-3.11.1">3.11.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.3">Section&nbsp;7.2.3 of [RFC4960]</a> explicitly states that partial_bytes_acked
   should be reset to 0 after packet loss detection from selective
   acknowledgment (SACK), but this information is not accounted for in
   the case of T3-rtx timer expiration.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.11.2" href="#section-3.11.2">3.11.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.3">Section 7.2.3</a>)
   ---------

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

   ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU)
   cwnd = 1*MTU





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.3">Section 7.2.3</a>)
   ---------

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

   ssthresh = max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU)
   cwnd = 1*MTU
   partial_bytes_acked = 0

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.11.3" href="#section-3.11.3">3.11.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text specifies that partial_bytes_acked should be reset to 0
   after T3-rtx timer expiration.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.12" href="#section-3.12">3.12</a>.  Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.12.1" href="#section-3.12.1">3.12.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.2">Section&nbsp;7.2.2 of [RFC4960]</a> likely implies the wrong order of
   adjustments applied to partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion
   avoidance phase.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.12.2" href="#section-3.12.2">3.12.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
      before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
      of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
      was greater than or equal to cwnd), increase cwnd by MTU, and
      reset partial_bytes_acked to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  (1) when partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
      (2) before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more
      bytes of data outstanding (i.e., before the arrival of the SACK,





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


      flightsize was greater than or equal to cwnd), partial_bytes_acked
      is reset to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).  Next, cwnd is increased
      by 1*MTU.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.26">Section 3.26</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.12.3" href="#section-3.12.3">3.12.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text defines the exact order of adjustments of
   partial_bytes_acked and cwnd in the congestion avoidance phase.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.13" href="#section-3.13">3.13</a>.  HEARTBEAT ACK and the Association Error Counter</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.13.1" href="#section-3.13.1">3.13.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   Sections <a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a> and <a href="#section-8.3">8.3</a> of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] prescribe that the receiver of a
   HEARTBEAT ACK must reset the association overall error count.  In
   some circumstances, e.g., when a router discards DATA chunks but not
   HEARTBEAT chunks due to the larger size of the DATA chunk, it might
   be better to not clear the association error counter on reception of
   the HEARTBEAT ACK and reset it only on reception of the SACK to avoid
   stalling the association.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.13.2" href="#section-3.13.2">3.13.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   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: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   The counter MUST be reset each time a DATA chunk sent to that peer
   endpoint is acknowledged (by the reception of a SACK).  When a
   HEARTBEAT ACK is received from the peer endpoint, the counter SHOULD
   also be reset.  The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK MAY choose not to
   clear the counter if there is outstanding data on the association.
   This allows for handling the possible difference in reachability
   based on DATA chunks and HEARTBEAT chunks.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
   should clear the error counter of the destination transport address
   to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
   address as active if it is not so marked.  The endpoint may
   optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
   address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
   HEARTBEAT ACK.  The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK must also clear the
   association overall error count as well (as defined in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
   MUST clear the error counter of the destination transport address to
   which the HEARTBEAT was sent and mark the destination transport
   address as active if it is not so marked.  The endpoint MAY
   optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
   address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
   HEARTBEAT ACK.  The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK SHOULD also clear
   the association overall error count (as defined in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>).

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.23">Section 3.23</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.13.3" href="#section-3.13.3">3.13.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text provides the possibility of not resetting the
   association overall error count when a HEARTBEAT ACK is received if
   there are valid reasons for not doing so.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.14" href="#section-3.14">3.14</a>.  Path for Fast Retransmission</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.14.1" href="#section-3.14.1">3.14.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] clearly describes where to retransmit data that is timed
   out when the peer is multi-homed, but the same is not stated for fast
   retransmissions.









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.14.2" href="#section-3.14.2">3.14.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>)
   ---------

   Furthermore, when its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD try to
   retransmit a chunk that timed out to an active destination transport
   address that is different from the last destination address to which
   the DATA chunk was sent.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>)
   ---------

   Furthermore, when its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD try to
   retransmit a chunk that timed out to an active destination transport
   address that is different from the last destination address to which
   the DATA chunk was sent.

   When its peer is multi-homed, an endpoint SHOULD send fast
   retransmissions to the same destination transport address to which
   the original data was sent.  If the primary path has been changed and
   the original data was sent to the old primary path before the Fast
   Retransmit, the implementation MAY send it to the new primary path.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.14.3" href="#section-3.14.3">3.14.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text clarifies where to send fast retransmissions.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.15" href="#section-3.15">3.15</a>.  Transmittal in Fast Recovery</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.15.1" href="#section-3.15.1">3.15.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The Fast Retransmit on Gap Reports algorithm intends that only the
   very first packet may be sent regardless of cwnd in the Fast Recovery
   phase, but rule 3) in <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.4">Section&nbsp;7.2.4 of [RFC4960]</a> misses this
   clarification.










<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.15.2" href="#section-3.15.2">3.15.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.4">Section 7.2.4</a>)
   ---------

   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 for this single
       packet.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.4">Section 7.2.4</a>)
   ---------

   3)  If not in Fast Recovery, 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 PMTU 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 for this single packet.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.15.3" href="#section-3.15.3">3.15.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text explicitly specifies that only the first packet in the
   Fast Recovery phase be sent and that the cwnd limitations be
   disregarded.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.16" href="#section-3.16">3.16</a>.  Initial Value of ssthresh</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.16.1" href="#section-3.16.1">3.16.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The initial value of ssthresh should be set arbitrarily high.  Using
   the advertised receiver window of the peer is inappropriate if the
   peer increases its window after the handshake.  Furthermore, a higher
   requirement level needs to be used, since not following the advice
   may result in performance problems.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.16.2" href="#section-3.16.2">3.16.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial value of ssthresh MAY be arbitrarily high (for
      example, implementations MAY use the size of the receiver
      advertised window).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial value of ssthresh SHOULD be arbitrarily high (e.g.,
      the size of the largest possible advertised window).

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.16.3" href="#section-3.16.3">3.16.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The same value as the value suggested in <a href="./rfc5681#section-3.1">[RFC5681], Section&nbsp;3.1</a>, is
   now used as an appropriate initial value.  Also, the same requirement
   level is used.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.17" href="#section-3.17">3.17</a>.  Automatically CONFIRMED Addresses</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.17.1" href="#section-3.17.1">3.17.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The Path Verification procedure of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] prescribes that any
   address passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer be
   automatically CONFIRMED.  This, however, is unclear if (1) only
   addresses in the request to initiate association establishment or
   (2) any addresses provided by the upper layer in any requests (e.g.,
   in 'Set Primary') are considered.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.17.2" href="#section-3.17.2">3.17.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>)
   ---------

   1)  Any address passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer
      is automatically considered to be CONFIRMED.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>)
   ---------

   1)  Any addresses passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer
       in the request to initialize an association are automatically
       considered to be CONFIRMED.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.17.3" href="#section-3.17.3">3.17.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text clarifies that only addresses provided by the upper
   layer in the request to initialize an association are automatically
   CONFIRMED.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.18" href="#section-3.18">3.18</a>.  Only One Packet after Retransmission Timeout</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.18.1" href="#section-3.18.1">3.18.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] is not completely clear when it describes data transmission
   after T3-rtx timer expiration.  <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.1">Section&nbsp;7.2.1 of [RFC4960]</a> does not
   specify how many packets are allowed to be sent after T3-rtx timer
   expiration if more than one packet fits into cwnd.  At the same time,
   <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.3">Section&nbsp;7.2.3 of [RFC4960]</a> has text without normative language saying
   that SCTP should ensure that no more than one packet will be in
   flight after T3-rtx timer expiration until successful
   acknowledgement.  The text is therefore inconsistent.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.18.2" href="#section-3.18.2">3.18.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial cwnd after a retransmission timeout MUST be no more
      than 1*MTU.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial cwnd after a retransmission timeout MUST be no more
      than 1*MTU, and only one packet is allowed to be in flight until
      successful acknowledgement.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.18.3" href="#section-3.18.3">3.18.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text clearly specifies that only one packet is allowed to be
   sent after T3-rtx timer expiration until successful acknowledgement.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.19" href="#section-3.19">3.19</a>.  INIT ACK Path for INIT in COOKIE-WAIT State</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.19.1" href="#section-3.19.1">3.19.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   In the case of an INIT received in the COOKIE-WAIT state, [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>]
   prescribes that an INIT ACK be sent to the same destination address
   to which the original INIT has been sent.  [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] does not address
   the possibility of the upper layer providing multiple remote IP
   addresses while requesting the association establishment.  If the
   upper layer has provided multiple IP addresses and only a subset of
   these addresses are supported by the peer, then the destination
   address of the original INIT may be absent in the incoming INIT and
   sending an INIT ACK to that address is useless.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.19.2" href="#section-3.19.2">3.19.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   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 Initiate 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.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.2.1">Section 5.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   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 Initiate Tag, unchanged).  When
   responding, the following rules MUST be applied:

   1)  The INIT ACK MUST only be sent to an address passed by the upper
       layer in the request to initialize the association.

   2)  The INIT ACK MUST only be sent to an address reported in the
       incoming INIT.



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   3)  The INIT ACK SHOULD be sent to the source address of the received
       INIT.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.19.3" href="#section-3.19.3">3.19.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text requires sending an INIT ACK to a destination address
   that is passed by the upper layer and reported in the incoming INIT.
   If the source address of the INIT meets these conditions, sending the
   INIT ACK to the source address of the INIT is the preferred behavior.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.20" href="#section-3.20">3.20</a>.  Zero Window Probing and Unreachable Primary Path</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.20.1" href="#section-3.20.1">3.20.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.1">Section&nbsp;6.1 of [RFC4960]</a> states that when sending zero window probes,
   SCTP should neither increment the association counter nor increment
   the destination address error counter if it continues to receive new
   packets from the peer.  However, the reception of new packets from
   the peer does not guarantee the peer's reachability, and if the
   destination address becomes unreachable during zero window probing,
   SCTP cannot get an updated rwnd until it switches the destination
   address for probes.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.20.2" href="#section-3.20.2">3.20.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A))
   ---------

   If the sender continues to receive new packets from the receiver
   while doing zero window probing, the unacknowledged window probes
   should not increment the error counter for the association or any
   destination transport address.  This is because the receiver MAY keep
   its window closed for an indefinite time.  Refer to <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a> on
   the receiver behavior when it advertises a zero window.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> A))
   ---------

   If the sender continues to receive SACKs from the peer while doing
   zero window probing, the unacknowledged window probes SHOULD NOT
   increment the error counter for the association or any destination





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   transport address.  This is because the receiver could keep its
   window closed for an indefinite time.  <a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a> describes the
   receiver behavior when it advertises a zero window.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.20.3" href="#section-3.20.3">3.20.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text clarifies that if the receiver continues to send SACKs,
   the sender of probes should not increment the error counter of the
   association and the destination address even if the SACKs do not
   acknowledge the probes.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.21" href="#section-3.21">3.21</a>.  Normative Language in <a href="./rfc4960#section-10">Section&nbsp;10 of RFC 4960</a></span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.21.1" href="#section-3.21.1">3.21.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-10">Section&nbsp;10 of [RFC4960]</a> is informative.  Therefore, normative
   language such as MUST and MAY cannot be used there.  However, there
   are several places in <a href="./rfc4960#section-10">Section&nbsp;10 of [RFC4960]</a> where MUST and MAY
   are used.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.21.2" href="#section-3.21.2">3.21.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> E))
   ---------

   o  no-bundle flag - instructs SCTP not to bundle this user data with
      other outbound DATA chunks.  SCTP MAY still bundle even when this
      flag is present, when faced with network congestion.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> E))
   ---------

   o  no-bundle flag - instructs SCTP not to bundle this user data with
      other outbound DATA chunks.  When faced with network congestion,
      SCTP may still bundle the data, even when this flag is present.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> G))
   ---------

   o  Stream Sequence Number - the Stream Sequence Number assigned by
      the sending SCTP peer.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      Receive contains a partial delivery of the whole message.  When
      this flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
      accompany this receive.  When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
      that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
      Number.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> G))
   ---------

   o  stream sequence number - the Stream Sequence Number assigned by
      the sending SCTP peer.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      primitive contains a partial delivery of the whole message.  When
      this flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
      accompany this primitive.  When this flag is set to 0, it
      indicates that no more deliveries will be received for this stream
      sequence number.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> N))
   ---------

   o  Stream Sequence Number - this value is returned indicating the
      Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      message is a partial delivery of the whole message.  When this
      flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
      accompany this receive.  When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
      that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
      Number.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> N))
   ---------

   o  stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating the
      Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      message is a partial delivery of the whole message.  When this
      flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
      accompany this primitive.  When this flag is set to 0, it
      indicates that no more deliveries will be received for this stream
      sequence number.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> O))
   ---------

   o  Stream Sequence Number - this value is returned indicating the
      Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      message is a partial delivery of the whole message.  When this
      flag is set, the stream id and Stream Sequence Number MUST
      accompany this receive.  When this flag is set to 0, it indicates
      that no more deliveries will be received for this Stream Sequence
      Number.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> O))
   ---------

   o  stream sequence number - this value is returned indicating the
      Stream Sequence Number that was associated with the message.

   o  partial flag - if this returned flag is set to 1, then this
      message is a partial delivery of the whole message.  When this
      flag is set, the stream id and stream sequence number must
      accompany this primitive.  When this flag is set to 0, it
      indicates that no more deliveries will be received for this stream
      sequence number.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.21.3" href="#section-3.21.3">3.21.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The normative language is removed from <a href="#section-10">Section 10</a>.  In addition, the
   consistency of the text has been improved.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.22" href="#section-3.22">3.22</a>.  Increase of partial_bytes_acked in Congestion Avoidance</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.22.1" href="#section-3.22.1">3.22.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   Two issues have been discovered in the text in <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.2">Section&nbsp;7.2.2 of
   [RFC4960]</a> regarding partial_bytes_acked handling:

   o  If the Cumulative TSN Ack Point is not advanced but the SACK chunk
      acknowledges new TSNs in the Gap Ack Blocks, these newly
      acknowledged TSNs are not considered for partial_bytes_acked even
      though these TSNs were successfully received by the peer.

   o  Duplicate TSNs are not considered in partial_bytes_acked even
      though they confirm that the DATA chunks were successfully
      received by the peer.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.22.2" href="#section-3.22.2">3.22.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival
      that advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, increase
      partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all new chunks
      acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged by the new
      Cumulative TSN Ack and by Gap Ack Blocks.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival,
      increase partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all
      new chunks acknowledged in that SACK, including chunks
      acknowledged by the new Cumulative TSN Ack, by Gap Ack Blocks,
      and by the number of bytes of duplicated chunks reported in
      Duplicate TSNs.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.26">Section 3.26</a>.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.22.3" href="#section-3.22.3">3.22.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   In the new text, partial_bytes_acked is increased by TSNs reported as
   duplicated, as well as TSNs newly acknowledged in Gap Ack Blocks,
   even if the Cumulative TSN Ack Point is not advanced.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.23" href="#section-3.23">3.23</a>.  Inconsistent Handling of Notifications</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.23.1" href="#section-3.23.1">3.23.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] uses inconsistent normative and non-normative language when
   describing rules for sending notifications to the upper layer.  For
   example, <a href="./rfc4960#section-8.2">Section&nbsp;8.2 of [RFC4960]</a> says that when a destination
   address becomes inactive due to an unacknowledged DATA chunk or
   HEARTBEAT chunk, SCTP SHOULD send a notification to the upper layer;
   however, <a href="./rfc4960#section-8.3">Section&nbsp;8.3 of [RFC4960]</a> says that when a destination
   address becomes inactive due to an unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunk,
   SCTP may send a notification to the upper layer.

   These inconsistent descriptions need to be corrected.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.23.2" href="#section-3.23.2">3.23.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   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.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint SHOULD keep a counter on the total number of consecutive
   retransmissions to its peer (this includes data retransmissions to
   all the destination transport addresses of the peer if it is
   multi-homed), including the number of unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks
   observed on the path that is currently used for data transfer.
   Unacknowledged HEARTBEAT chunks observed on paths different from the
   path currently used for data transfer SHOULD NOT increment the
   association error counter, as this could lead to association closure
   even if the path that is currently used for data transfer is
   available (but idle).  If the value of this counter exceeds the limit
   indicated in the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans', the
   endpoint SHOULD consider the peer endpoint unreachable and SHALL stop



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   transmitting any more data to it (and thus the association enters the
   CLOSED state).  In addition, the endpoint SHOULD 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.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.6">Section 3.6</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.2">Section 8.2</a>)
   ---------

   When an outstanding TSN is acknowledged or a HEARTBEAT sent to that
   address is acknowledged with a HEARTBEAT ACK, the endpoint shall
   clear the error counter of the destination transport address to which
   the DATA chunk was last sent (or HEARTBEAT was sent).  When the peer
   endpoint is multi-homed and the last chunk sent to it was a
   retransmission to an alternate address, there exists an ambiguity as
   to whether or not the acknowledgement should be credited to the
   address of the last chunk sent.  However, this ambiguity does not
   seem to bear any significant consequence to SCTP behavior.  If this
   ambiguity is undesirable, the transmitter may choose not to clear the
   error counter if the last chunk sent was a retransmission.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.2">Section 8.2</a>)
   ---------

   When an outstanding TSN is acknowledged or a HEARTBEAT sent to that
   address is acknowledged with a HEARTBEAT ACK, the endpoint SHOULD
   clear the error counter of the destination transport address to which
   the DATA chunk was last sent (or HEARTBEAT was sent) and SHOULD also
   report to the upper layer when an inactive destination address is
   marked as active.  When the peer endpoint is multi-homed and the last
   chunk sent to it was a retransmission to an alternate address, there
   exists an ambiguity as to whether or not the acknowledgement could be
   credited to the address of the last chunk sent.  However, this
   ambiguity does not seem to have significant consequences for SCTP
   behavior.  If this ambiguity is undesirable, the transmitter MAY
   choose not to clear the error counter if the last chunk sent was a
   retransmission.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   When the value of this counter reaches the protocol parameter
   'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may also
   optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
   this destination address.  After this, the endpoint should continue
   HEARTBEAT on this destination address but should stop increasing the
   counter.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   When the value of this counter exceeds the protocol parameter
   'Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint SHOULD mark the corresponding
   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked and SHOULD
   also report to the upper layer the change in reachability of this
   destination address.  After this, the endpoint SHOULD continue
   HEARTBEAT on this destination address but SHOULD stop increasing the
   counter.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
   should clear the error counter of the destination transport address
   to which the HEARTBEAT was sent, and mark the destination transport
   address as active if it is not so marked.  The endpoint may
   optionally report to the upper layer when an inactive destination
   address is marked as active due to the reception of the latest
   HEARTBEAT ACK.  The receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK must also clear the
   association overall error count as well (as defined in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>)
   ---------

   Upon the receipt of the HEARTBEAT ACK, the sender of the HEARTBEAT
   SHOULD clear the error counter of the destination transport address
   to which the HEARTBEAT was sent and mark the destination transport



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   address as active if it is not so marked.  The endpoint SHOULD report
   to the upper layer when an inactive destination address is marked as
   active due to the reception of the latest HEARTBEAT ACK.  The
   receiver of the HEARTBEAT ACK SHOULD also clear the association
   overall error count (as defined in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>).

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.13">Section 3.13</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint should limit the number of retransmissions of the
   SHUTDOWN chunk to the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans'.
   If this threshold is exceeded, the endpoint should destroy the TCB
   and MUST report the peer endpoint unreachable to the upper layer (and
   thus the association enters the CLOSED state).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint SHOULD limit the number of retransmissions of the
   SHUTDOWN chunk to the protocol parameter 'Association.Max.Retrans'.
   If this threshold is exceeded, the endpoint SHOULD destroy the TCB
   and SHOULD report the peer endpoint unreachable to the upper layer
   (and thus the association enters the CLOSED state).

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of the SHUTDOWN ACK should limit the number of
   retransmissions of the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk to the protocol parameter
   'Association.Max.Retrans'.  If this threshold is exceeded, the
   endpoint should destroy the TCB and may report the peer endpoint
   unreachable to the upper layer (and thus the association enters the
   CLOSED state).








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-9.2">Section 9.2</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of the SHUTDOWN ACK SHOULD limit the number of
   retransmissions of the SHUTDOWN ACK chunk to the protocol parameter
   'Association.Max.Retrans'.  If this threshold is exceeded, the
   endpoint SHOULD destroy the TCB and SHOULD report the peer endpoint
   unreachable to the upper layer (and thus the association enters the
   CLOSED state).

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.23.3" href="#section-3.23.3">3.23.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The inconsistencies are removed by consistently using SHOULD.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.24" href="#section-3.24">3.24</a>.  SACK.Delay Not Listed as a Protocol Parameter</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.24.1" href="#section-3.24.1">3.24.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   SCTP as specified in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] supports delaying SACKs.  The timer
   value for this is a parameter, and <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.2">Section&nbsp;6.2 of [RFC4960]</a> specifies
   a default and maximum value for it.  However, (1) defining a name for
   this parameter and (2) listing it in the table of protocol parameters
   in <a href="./rfc4960#section-15">Section&nbsp;15 of [RFC4960]</a> are missing.

   This issue was reported as an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 4656.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.24.2" href="#section-3.24.2">3.24.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay to be configured
   to be more than 500 ms.  In other words, an implementation MAY lower
   this value below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms.











<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   An implementation MUST NOT allow the maximum delay (protocol
   parameter 'SACK.Delay') to be configured to be more than 500 ms.  In
   other words, an implementation MAY lower the value of SACK.Delay
   below 500 ms but MUST NOT raise it above 500 ms.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>)
   ---------

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

      RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
      RTO.Min - 1 second
      RTO.Max - 60 seconds
      Max.Burst - 4
      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
      HB.Max.Burst - 1





















<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 38]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-39" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>)
   ---------

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

      RTO.Initial: 3 seconds
      RTO.Min: 1 second
      RTO.Max: 60 seconds
      Max.Burst: 4
      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
      HB.Max.Burst: 1
      SACK.Delay: 200 milliseconds

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.32">Section 3.32</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.24.3" href="#section-3.24.3">3.24.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The parameter is given the name 'SACK.Delay' and added to the list of
   protocol parameters.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.25" href="#section-3.25">3.25</a>.  Processing of Chunks in an Incoming SCTP Packet</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.25.1" href="#section-3.25.1">3.25.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   There are a few places in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] where text specifies that the
   receiver of a packet must discard it while processing the chunks of
   the packet.  Whether or not the receiver has to roll back state
   changes already performed while processing the packet is unclear.

   The intention of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] is to process an incoming packet chunk by
   chunk and not to perform any prescreening of chunks in the received
   packet.  Thus, by discarding one chunk, the receiver also causes the
   discarding of all further chunks.










<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 39]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-40" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.25.2" href="#section-3.25.2">3.25.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>)
   ---------

   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 chunk in an 'Unrecognized Chunk Type'.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>)
   ---------

   00 -  Stop processing this SCTP packet; discard the unrecognized
         chunk and all further chunks.

   01 -  Stop processing this SCTP packet, discard the unrecognized
         chunk and all further chunks, and report the unrecognized
         chunk in an 'Unrecognized Chunk Type'.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-11.3">Section 11.3</a>)
   ---------

   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 (for further information,
   please refer to [<a href="./rfc1858" title="&quot;Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering&quot;">RFC1858</a>]).  Accordingly, we stress the requirements,
   stated in <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>, 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 or has a non-zero verification tag and
   contains an INIT-chunk.









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 40]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-41" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-11.3">Section 11.3</a>)
   ---------

   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 (for further information,
   please refer to [<a href="./rfc1858" title="&quot;Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering&quot;">RFC1858</a>]).  Accordingly, we stress the requirements,
   as stated in <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>, 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.  The receiver of an INIT
   chunk MUST silently discard the INIT chunk and all further chunks if
   the INIT chunk is bundled with other chunks or the packet has a
   non-zero Verification Tag.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.25.3" href="#section-3.25.3">3.25.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text makes it clear that chunks can be processed from the
   beginning to the end and that no rollback or prescreening is
   required.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.26" href="#section-3.26">3.26</a>.  Increasing the cwnd in the Congestion Avoidance Phase</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.26.1" href="#section-3.26.1">3.26.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.2">Section&nbsp;7.2.2 of [RFC4960]</a> prescribes that cwnd be increased by 1*MTU
   per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data outstanding to
   the corresponding address in the congestion avoidance phase.
   However, this is described without normative language.  Moreover,
   <a href="./rfc4960#section-7.2.2">Section&nbsp;7.2.2 of [RFC4960]</a> includes an algorithm that specifies how
   an implementation can achieve this, but this algorithm is
   underspecified and actually allows increasing cwnd by more than 1*MTU
   per RTT.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.26.2" href="#section-3.26.2">3.26.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   When cwnd is greater than ssthresh, cwnd should be incremented by
   1*MTU per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data
   outstanding for the corresponding transport address.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 41]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-42" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   When cwnd is greater than ssthresh, cwnd SHOULD be incremented by
   1*MTU per RTT if the sender has cwnd or more bytes of data
   outstanding for the corresponding transport address.  The basic
   guidelines for incrementing cwnd during congestion avoidance are as
   follows:

   o  SCTP MAY increment cwnd by 1*MTU.

   o  SCTP SHOULD increment cwnd by 1*MTU once per RTT when the sender
      has cwnd or more bytes of data outstanding for the corresponding
      transport address.

   o  SCTP MUST NOT increment cwnd by more than 1*MTU per RTT.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival
      that advances the Cumulative TSN Ack Point, increase
      partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all new chunks
      acknowledged in that SACK including chunks acknowledged by the new
      Cumulative TSN Ack and by Gap Ack Blocks.

   o  When partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
      before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more bytes
      of data outstanding (i.e., before arrival of the SACK, flightsize
      was greater than or equal to cwnd), increase cwnd by MTU, and
      reset partial_bytes_acked to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than ssthresh, upon each SACK arrival,
      increase partial_bytes_acked by the total number of bytes of all
      new chunks acknowledged in that SACK, including chunks
      acknowledged by the new Cumulative TSN Ack, by Gap Ack Blocks,
      and by the number of bytes of duplicated chunks reported in
      Duplicate TSNs.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 42]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-43" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   o  (1) when partial_bytes_acked is greater than cwnd and (2) before
      the arrival of the SACK the sender had less than cwnd bytes of
      data outstanding (i.e., before the arrival of the SACK, flightsize
      was less than cwnd), reset partial_bytes_acked to cwnd.

   o  (1) when partial_bytes_acked is equal to or greater than cwnd and
      (2) before the arrival of the SACK the sender had cwnd or more
      bytes of data outstanding (i.e., before the arrival of the SACK,
      flightsize was greater than or equal to cwnd), partial_bytes_acked
      is reset to (partial_bytes_acked - cwnd).  Next, cwnd is increased
      by 1*MTU.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from Sections <a href="#section-3.12">3.12</a> and <a href="#section-3.22">3.22</a>.  It is in final form and
   is not further updated in this document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.26.3" href="#section-3.26.3">3.26.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The basic guidelines for incrementing cwnd during the congestion
   avoidance phase are added into <a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a>.  The guidelines include
   the normative language and are aligned with [<a href="./rfc5681" title="&quot;TCP Congestion Control&quot;">RFC5681</a>].

   The algorithm from <a href="#section-7.2.2">Section 7.2.2</a> is improved and now does not allow
   increasing cwnd by more than 1*MTU per RTT.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.27" href="#section-3.27">3.27</a>.  Refresh of cwnd and ssthresh after Idle Period</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.27.1" href="#section-3.27.1">3.27.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] prescribes that cwnd per RTO be adjusted if the endpoint
   does not transmit data on a given transport address.  In addition to
   that, it prescribes that cwnd be set to the initial value after a
   sufficiently long idle period.  The latter is excessive.  Moreover,
   what is considered a sufficiently long idle period is unclear.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] doesn't specify the handling of ssthresh in the idle case.
   If ssthresh is reduced due to packet loss, ssthresh is never
   recovered.  So, traffic can end up in congestion avoidance all the
   time, resulting in a low sending rate and bad performance.  The
   problem is even more serious for SCTP: in a multi-homed SCTP
   association, traffic that switches back to the previously failed
   primary path will also lead to the situation where traffic ends up in
   congestion avoidance.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 43]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-44" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.27.2" href="#section-3.27.2">3.27.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial cwnd before DATA transmission or after a sufficiently
      long idle period MUST be set to min(4*MTU, max (2*MTU, 4380
      bytes)).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  The initial cwnd before data transmission MUST be set to
      min(4*MTU, max (2*MTU, 4380 bytes)).

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  When the endpoint does not transmit data on a given transport
      address, the cwnd of the transport address should be adjusted to
      max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU) per RTO.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  While the endpoint does not transmit data on a given transport
      address, the cwnd of the transport address SHOULD be adjusted to
      max(cwnd/2, 4*MTU) once per RTO.  Before the first cwnd
      adjustment, the ssthresh of the transport address SHOULD be set to
      the cwnd.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.27.3" href="#section-3.27.3">3.27.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   A rule about cwnd adjustment after a sufficiently long idle period is
   removed.

   The text is updated to describe the handling of ssthresh.  When the
   idle period is detected, the cwnd value is copied to ssthresh.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 44]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-45" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.28" href="#section-3.28">3.28</a>.  Window Updates after Receiver Window Opens Up</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.28.1" href="#section-3.28.1">3.28.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The sending of SACK chunks for window updates is only indirectly
   referenced in <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.2">Section&nbsp;6.2 of [RFC4960]</a>, which states that an SCTP
   receiver must not generate more than one SACK for every incoming
   packet, other than to update the offered window.

   However, to avoid performance problems, it is necessary to send the
   window updates when the receiver window opens up.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.28.2" href="#section-3.28.2">3.28.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every
   incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the
   receiving application consumes new data.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   An SCTP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one SACK for every
   incoming packet, other than to update the offered window as the
   receiving application consumes new data.  When the window opens up,
   an SCTP receiver SHOULD send additional SACK chunks to update the
   window even if no new data is received.  The receiver MUST avoid
   sending a large number of window updates -- in particular, large
   bursts of them.  One way to achieve this is to send a window update
   only if the window can be increased by at least a quarter of the
   receive buffer size of the association.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.28.3" href="#section-3.28.3">3.28.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text makes it clear that additional SACK chunks for window
   updates should be sent as long as excessive bursts are avoided.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 45]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-46" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.29" href="#section-3.29">3.29</a>.  Path of DATA and Reply Chunks</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.29.1" href="#section-3.29.1">3.29.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.4">Section&nbsp;6.4 of [RFC4960]</a> describes the transmission policy for
   multi-homed SCTP endpoints.  However, this policy has the following
   issues:

   o  It states that a SACK should be sent to the source address of an
      incoming DATA.  However, it is known that other SACK policies
      (e.g., always sending SACKs to the primary path) may be more
      beneficial in some situations.

   o  Also, it initially states that an endpoint should always transmit
      DATA chunks to the primary path but then states that the rule for
      the transmittal of reply chunks should also be followed if the
      endpoint is bundling DATA chunks together with the reply chunk.
      The second statement contradicts the first statement.  Some
      implementations were having problems with it and sent DATA chunks
      bundled with reply chunks to a different destination address than
      the primary path, causing many gaps.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.29.2" href="#section-3.29.2">3.29.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., SACK, HEARTBEAT ACK,
   etc.) to the same destination transport address from which it
   received the DATA or control chunk to which it is replying.  This
   rule should also be followed if the endpoint is bundling DATA chunks
   together with the reply chunk.

   However, when acknowledging multiple DATA chunks received in packets
   from different source addresses in a single SACK, the SACK chunk may
   be transmitted to one of the destination transport addresses from
   which the DATA or control chunks being acknowledged were received.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>)
   ---------

   An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., INIT ACK, COOKIE ACK,
   HEARTBEAT ACK) in response to control chunks to the same destination
   transport address from which it received the control chunk to which
   it is replying.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 46]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-47" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   The selection of the destination transport address for packets
   containing SACK chunks is implementation dependent.  However, an
   endpoint SHOULD NOT vary the destination transport address of a SACK
   when it receives DATA chunks coming from the same source address.

   When acknowledging multiple DATA chunks received in packets from
   different source addresses in a single SACK, the SACK chunk MAY be
   transmitted to one of the destination transport addresses from which
   the DATA or control chunks being acknowledged were received.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.29.3" href="#section-3.29.3">3.29.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The SACK transmission policy is left implementation dependent, but
   the new text now specifies that the policy not vary the destination
   address of a packet containing a SACK chunk unless there are reasons
   for not doing so, as varying the destination address may negatively
   impact RTT measurement.

   New text removes a confusing statement that prescribes following the
   rule for transmittal of reply chunks when the endpoint is bundling
   DATA chunks together with the reply chunk.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.30" href="#section-3.30">3.30</a>.  "Outstanding Data", "Flightsize", and "Data in Flight" Key Terms</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.30.1" href="#section-3.30.1">3.30.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] uses the key terms "outstanding data", "flightsize", and
   "data in flight" in formulas and statements, but <a href="#section-1.3">Section 1.3</a>
   ("Key Terms") of [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] does not provide their definitions.
   Furthermore, outstanding data does not include DATA chunks that are
   classified as lost but that have not yet been retransmitted, and
   there is a paragraph in <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.1">Section&nbsp;6.1 of [RFC4960]</a> where this statement
   is broken.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.30.2" href="#section-3.30.2">3.30.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-1.3">Section 1.3</a>)
   ---------

   o  Congestion window (cwnd): An SCTP variable that limits the data,
      in number of bytes, a sender can send to a particular destination
      transport address before receiving an acknowledgement.

   ...



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 47]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-48" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   o  Outstanding TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated
      DATA chunk) that has been sent by the endpoint but for which it
      has not yet received an acknowledgement.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-1.3">Section 1.3</a>)
   ---------

   o  Congestion window (cwnd): An SCTP variable that limits outstanding
      data, in number of bytes, that a sender can send to a particular
      destination transport address before receiving an acknowledgement.

   ...

   o  Flightsize: The amount of bytes of outstanding data to a
      particular destination transport address at any given time.

   ...

   o  Outstanding data (or "data outstanding" or "data in flight"): The
      total amount of the DATA chunks associated with outstanding TSNs.
      A retransmitted DATA chunk is counted once in outstanding data.  A
      DATA chunk that is classified as lost but that has not yet been
      retransmitted is not in outstanding data.

   o  Outstanding TSN (at an SCTP endpoint): A TSN (and the associated
      DATA chunk) that has been sent by the endpoint but for which it
      has not yet received an acknowledgement.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   C) When the time comes for the sender to transmit, before sending new
      DATA chunks, the sender MUST first transmit any outstanding DATA
      chunks that are marked for retransmission (limited by the current
      cwnd).

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   C) When the time comes for the sender to transmit, before sending new
      DATA chunks, the sender MUST first transmit any DATA chunks that
      are marked for retransmission (limited by the current cwnd).



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 48]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-49" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.30.3" href="#section-3.30.3">3.30.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   <a href="#section-1.3">Section 1.3</a> is corrected to include explanations of the key terms
   "outstanding data", "data in flight", and "flightsize".  <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>
   is corrected to now use "any DATA chunks" instead of "any outstanding
   DATA chunks".

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.31" href="#section-3.31">3.31</a>.  Degradation of cwnd due to Max.Burst</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.31.1" href="#section-3.31.1">3.31.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   Some implementations were experiencing a degradation of cwnd because
   of the Max.Burst limit.  This was due to misinterpretation of the
   suggestion in <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.1">Section&nbsp;6.1 of [RFC4960]</a> regarding how to use the
   Max.Burst parameter when calculating the number of packets to
   transmit.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.31.2" href="#section-3.31.2">3.31.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   D) When the time comes for the sender to transmit new DATA chunks,
      the protocol parameter Max.Burst SHOULD be used to limit the
      number of packets sent.  The limit MAY be applied by adjusting
      cwnd as follows:

      if((flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU) &lt; cwnd) cwnd = flightsize +
      Max.Burst*MTU

      Or it MAY be applied by strictly limiting the number of packets
      emitted by the output routine.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   D) When the time comes for the sender to transmit new DATA chunks,
      the protocol parameter Max.Burst SHOULD be used to limit the
      number of packets sent.  The limit MAY be applied by adjusting
      cwnd temporarily, as follows:

      if ((flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU) &lt; cwnd)
          cwnd = flightsize + Max.Burst*MTU



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 49]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-50" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


      Or, it MAY be applied by strictly limiting the number of packets
      emitted by the output routine.  When calculating the number of
      packets to transmit, and particularly when using the formula
      above, cwnd SHOULD NOT be changed permanently.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.31.3" href="#section-3.31.3">3.31.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The new text clarifies that cwnd should not be changed when applying
   the Max.Burst limit.  This mitigates packet bursts related to the
   reception of SACK chunks but not bursts related to an application
   sending a burst of user messages.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.32" href="#section-3.32">3.32</a>.  Reduction of RTO.Initial</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.32.1" href="#section-3.32.1">3.32.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] uses 3 seconds as the default value for RTO.Initial in
   accordance with <a href="./rfc1122#section-4.2.3.1">Section&nbsp;4.2.3.1 of [RFC1122]</a>.  [<a href="./rfc6298" title="&quot;Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer&quot;">RFC6298</a>] updates
   [<a href="./rfc1122" title="&quot;Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers&quot;">RFC1122</a>] and lowers the initial value of the retransmission timer
   from 3 seconds to 1 second.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.32.2" href="#section-3.32.2">3.32.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>)
   ---------

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

      RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
      RTO.Min - 1 second
      RTO.Max - 60 seconds
      Max.Burst - 4
      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
      HB.Max.Burst - 1







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 50]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-51" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>)
   ---------

   The following protocol parameters are RECOMMENDED:

      RTO.Initial: 1 second
      RTO.Min: 1 second
      RTO.Max: 60 seconds
      Max.Burst: 4
      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
      HB.Max.Burst: 1
      SACK.Delay: 200 milliseconds

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.24">Section 3.24</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.32.3" href="#section-3.32.3">3.32.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The default value for RTO.Initial has been lowered to 1 second to be
   in tune with [<a href="./rfc6298" title="&quot;Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer&quot;">RFC6298</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.33" href="#section-3.33">3.33</a>.  Ordering of Bundled SACK and ERROR Chunks</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.33.1" href="#section-3.33.1">3.33.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   When an SCTP endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream
   identifier, it shall acknowledge it by sending a SACK chunk and
   indicate that the stream identifier was invalid by sending an ERROR
   chunk.  These two chunks may be bundled.  However, in the case of
   bundling, [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] requires that the ERROR chunk follow the SACK
   chunk.  This restriction regarding the ordering of the chunks is not
   necessary and might limit interoperability.











<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 51]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-52" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.33.2" href="#section-3.33.2">3.33.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>)
   ---------

   Every DATA chunk MUST carry a valid stream identifier.  If an
   endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream identifier, it
   shall acknowledge the reception of the DATA chunk following the
   normal procedure, immediately send an ERROR chunk with cause set to
   "Invalid Stream Identifier" (see <a href="#section-3.3.10">Section 3.3.10</a>), and discard the
   DATA chunk.  The endpoint may bundle the ERROR chunk in the same
   packet as the SACK as long as the ERROR follows the SACK.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>)
   ---------

   Every DATA chunk MUST carry a valid stream identifier.  If an
   endpoint receives a DATA chunk with an invalid stream identifier, it
   SHOULD acknowledge the reception of the DATA chunk following the
   normal procedure, immediately send an ERROR chunk with cause set to
   "Invalid Stream Identifier" (see <a href="#section-3.3.10">Section 3.3.10</a>), and discard the
   DATA chunk.  The endpoint MAY bundle the ERROR chunk and the SACK
   chunk in the same packet.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.33.3" href="#section-3.33.3">3.33.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The unnecessary restriction regarding the ordering of the SACK and
   ERROR chunks has been removed.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.34" href="#section-3.34">3.34</a>.  Undefined Parameter Returned by RECEIVE Primitive</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.34.1" href="#section-3.34.1">3.34.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] provides a description of an abstract API.  In the
   definition of the RECEIVE primitive, an optional parameter with name
   "delivery number" is mentioned.  However, no definition of this
   parameter is given in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>], and the parameter is unnecessary.









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 52]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-53" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.34.2" href="#section-3.34.2">3.34.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> G))
   ---------

   G) Receive

   Format: RECEIVE(association id, buffer address, buffer size
           [,stream id])
   -&gt; byte count [,transport address] [,stream id] [,stream sequence
      number] [,partial flag] [,delivery number] [,payload protocol-id]

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> G))
   ---------

   G) Receive

   Format: RECEIVE(association id, buffer address, buffer size
           [,stream id])
   -&gt; byte count [,transport address] [,stream id] [,stream sequence
      number] [,partial flag] [,payload protocol-id]

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.34.3" href="#section-3.34.3">3.34.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The undefined parameter has been removed.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.35" href="#section-3.35">3.35</a>.  DSCP Changes</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.35.1" href="#section-3.35.1">3.35.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The upper layer can change the Differentiated Services Code Point
   (DSCP) used for packets being sent.  Changing the DSCP can result in
   packets hitting different queues on the path.  Therefore, congestion
   control should be initialized when the DSCP is changed by the upper
   layer.  This is not described in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].











<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 53]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-54" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.35.2" href="#section-3.35.2">3.35.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.5">Section 7.2.5</a>)
   ---------

   7.2.5.  Making Changes to Differentiated Services Code Points

      SCTP implementations MAY allow an application to configure the
      Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) used for sending
      packets.  If a DSCP change might result in outgoing packets being
      queued in different queues, the congestion control parameters for
      all affected destination addresses MUST be reset to their initial
      values.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> M))
   ---------

   Mandatory attributes:

   o  association id - local handle to the SCTP association.

   o  protocol parameter list - the specific names and values of the
      protocol parameters (e.g., Association.Max.Retrans; see
      <a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>) that the SCTP user wishes to customize.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> M))
   ---------

   Mandatory attributes:

   o  association id - local handle to the SCTP association.

   o  protocol parameter list - the specific names and values of the
      protocol parameters (e.g., Association.Max.Retrans (see
      <a href="#section-15">Section 15</a>), or other parameters like the DSCP) that the SCTP user
      wishes to customize.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 54]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-55" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.35.3" href="#section-3.35.3">3.35.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   Text describing the required action for DSCP changes has been added.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.36" href="#section-3.36">3.36</a>.  Inconsistent Handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 Messages</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.36.1" href="#section-3.36.1">3.36.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-C">Appendix&nbsp;C of [RFC4960]</a> describes the handling of ICMPv4 and ICMPv6
   messages.  The handling of ICMP messages indicating that the port
   number is unreachable, as described in the enumerated procedures, is
   not consistent with the description given in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] after the
   procedures.  Furthermore, the text explicitly describes the handling
   of ICMPv6 packets indicating reachability problems but does not do
   the same for the corresponding ICMPv4 packets.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.36.2" href="#section-3.36.2">3.36.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP3) An implementation MAY ignore any ICMPv4 messages where the
          code does not indicate "Protocol Unreachable" or
          "Fragmentation Needed".

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP3) An implementation SHOULD ignore any ICMP messages where the
          code indicates "Port Unreachable".

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP9) If the ICMPv6 code is "Destination Unreachable", the
          implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
          state or alternatively increment the path error counter.








<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 55]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-56" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP9) If the ICMP type is "Destination Unreachable", the
          implementation MAY move the destination to the unreachable
          state or, alternatively, increment the path error counter.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It is further
   updated in <a href="#section-3.37">Section 3.37</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.36.3" href="#section-3.36.3">3.36.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The text has been changed to describe the intended handling of ICMP
   messages indicating that the port number is unreachable by replacing
   the third rule.  Also, the limitation to ICMPv6 in the ninth rule has
   been removed.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.37" href="#section-3.37">3.37</a>.  Handling of Soft Errors</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.37.1" href="#section-3.37.1">3.37.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC1122">RFC1122</a>] defines the handling of soft errors and hard errors for
   TCP.  <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-C">Appendix&nbsp;C of [RFC4960]</a> only deals with hard errors.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.37.2" href="#section-3.37.2">3.37.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP9) If the ICMPv6 code is "Destination Unreachable", the
          implementation MAY mark the destination into the unreachable
          state or alternatively increment the path error counter.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   ICMP9) If the ICMP type is "Destination Unreachable", the
          implementation MAY move the destination to the unreachable
          state or, alternatively, increment the path error counter.
          SCTP MAY provide information to the upper layer indicating
          the reception of ICMP messages when reporting a network status
          change.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 56]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-57" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.36">Section 3.36</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.37.3" href="#section-3.37.3">3.37.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   Text has been added allowing SCTP to notify the application in the
   case of soft errors.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.38" href="#section-3.38">3.38</a>.  Honoring cwnd</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.38.1" href="#section-3.38.1">3.38.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   When using the slow start algorithm, SCTP increases the congestion
   window only when it is being fully utilized.  Since SCTP uses DATA
   chunks and does not use the congestion window to fragment user
   messages, this requires that some overbooking of the congestion
   window be allowed.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.38.2" href="#section-3.38.2">3.38.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   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: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   B) At any given time, the sender MUST NOT transmit new data to a
      given transport address if it has cwnd + (PMTU - 1) or more bytes
      of data outstanding to that transport address.  If data is
      available, the sender SHOULD exceed cwnd by up to (PMTU - 1) bytes
      on a new data transmission if the flightsize does not currently
      reach cwnd.  The breach of cwnd MUST constitute one packet only.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 57]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-58" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than zero, the endpoint is allowed to
      have cwnd bytes of data outstanding on that transport address.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-7.2.1">Section 7.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  Whenever cwnd is greater than zero, the endpoint is allowed to
      have cwnd bytes of data outstanding on that transport address.  A
      limited overbooking as described in <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a> B) SHOULD be
      supported.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.38.3" href="#section-3.38.3">3.38.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   Text was added to clarify how the cwnd limit should be handled.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.39" href="#section-3.39">3.39</a>.  Zero Window Probing</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.39.1" href="#section-3.39.1">3.39.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The text in <a href="./rfc4960#section-6.1">Section&nbsp;6.1 of [RFC4960]</a> that describes zero window
   probing does not clearly address the case where the window is not
   zero but is too small for the next DATA chunk to be transmitted.
   Even in this case, zero window probing has to be performed to avoid
   deadlocks.



















<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 58]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-59" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.39.2" href="#section-3.39.2">3.39.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   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 <a href="#section-6.2.1">Section</a>
      <a href="#section-6.2.1">6.2.1</a>).  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's 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 a zero window probe SHOULD
      only be sent when all outstanding DATA chunks have been
      cumulatively acknowledged and no DATA chunks are in flight.  Zero
      window probing MUST be supported.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   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 smaller than the
      size of the next DATA chunk; see <a href="#section-6.2.1">Section 6.2.1</a>).  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's having been lost in transit from the data
      receiver to the data sender.

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

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 59]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-60" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.39.3" href="#section-3.39.3">3.39.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The terminology is used in a cleaner way.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.40" href="#section-3.40">3.40</a>.  Updating References regarding ECN</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.40.1" href="#section-3.40.1">3.40.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   For Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN), [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] refers only to
   [<a href="./rfc3168" title="&quot;The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP&quot;">RFC3168</a>], which has been updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>].  This needs to be
   reflected in the text when referring to ECN.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.40.2" href="#section-3.40.2">3.40.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   ECN [<a href="./rfc3168" title="&quot;The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP&quot;">RFC3168</a>] describes a proposed extension to IP that details a
   method to become aware of congestion outside of datagram loss.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   ECN as specified in [<a href="./rfc3168" title="&quot;The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP&quot;">RFC3168</a>] (updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>]) describes an
   extension to IP that details a method for becoming aware of
   congestion outside of datagram loss.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   In general, [<a href="./rfc3168" title="&quot;The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP&quot;">RFC3168</a>] should be followed with the following
   exceptions.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   In general, [<a href="./rfc3168" title="&quot;The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP&quot;">RFC3168</a>] (updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>]) SHOULD be followed, with
   the following exceptions.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 60]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-61" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] details negotiation of ECN during the SYN and SYN-ACK
   stages of a TCP connection.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] (updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>]) details the negotiation of ECN
   during the SYN and SYN-ACK stages of a TCP connection.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] details a specific bit for a receiver to send back in its
   TCP acknowledgements to notify the sender of the Congestion
   Experienced (CE) bit having arrived from the network.

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] (updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>]) details a specific bit for a
   receiver to send back in its TCP acknowledgements to notify the
   sender of the Congestion Experienced (CE) bit that the CE bit has
   arrived from the network.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] details a specific bit for a sender to send in the header
   of its next outbound TCP segment to indicate to its peer that it has
   reduced its congestion window.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 61]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-62" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Appendix A)
   ---------

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] (updated by [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>]) details a specific bit for a sender
   to send in the header of its next outbound TCP segment to indicate to
   its peer that it has reduced its congestion window.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.40.3" href="#section-3.40.3">3.40.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   References to [<a href="./rfc8311" title="&quot;Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation&quot;">RFC8311</a>] have been added.  Some wordsmithing was also
   done while making those updates.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.41" href="#section-3.41">3.41</a>.  Host Name Address Parameter Deprecated</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.41.1" href="#section-3.41.1">3.41.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] defines three types of address parameters to be used with
   INIT and INIT ACK chunks:

   1.  IPv4 Address parameters.

   2.  IPv6 Address parameters.

   3.  Host Name Address parameters.

   The first two parameter types are supported by the SCTP kernel
   implementations of FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris, but the third is not.
   In addition, the first two were successfully tested in all nine
   interoperability tests for SCTP, but the third has never been
   successfully tested.  Therefore, the Host Name Address parameter
   should be deprecated.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.41.2" href="#section-3.41.2">3.41.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2">Section 3.3.2</a>)
   ---------

   Note 3: An INIT chunk MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name
   Address parameter.  Moreover, the sender of the INIT MUST NOT combine
   any other address types with the Host Name Address in the INIT.  The
   receiver of INIT MUST ignore any other address types if the Host Name
   Address parameter is present in the received INIT chunk.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 62]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-63" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2">Section 3.3.2</a>)
   ---------

   Note 3: An INIT chunk MUST NOT contain the Host Name Address
   parameter.  The receiver of an INIT chunk containing a Host Name
   Address parameter MUST send an ABORT and MAY include an "Unresolvable
   Address" error cause.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2.1">Section 3.3.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of INIT uses this parameter to pass its Host Name (in
   place of its IP addresses) to its peer.  The peer is responsible for
   resolving the name.  Using this parameter might make it more likely
   for the association to work across a NAT box.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2.1">Section 3.3.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of an INIT chunk MUST NOT include this parameter.  The
   usage of the Host Name Address parameter is deprecated.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2.1">Section 3.3.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   Address Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      This is filled with the type value of the corresponding address
      TLV (e.g., IPv4 = 5, IPv6 = 6, Host name = 11).












<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 63]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-64" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.2.1">Section 3.3.2.1</a>)
   ---------

   Address Type: 16 bits (unsigned integer)

      This is filled with the type value of the corresponding address
      TLV (e.g., IPv4 = 5, IPv6 = 6).  The value indicating the Host
      Name Address parameter (Host name = 11) MUST NOT be used.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.3">Section 3.3.3</a>)
   ---------

   Note 3: The INIT ACK chunks MUST NOT contain more than one Host Name
   Address parameter.  Moreover, the sender of the INIT ACK MUST NOT
   combine any other address types with the Host Name Address in the
   INIT ACK.  The receiver of the INIT ACK MUST ignore any other address
   types if the Host Name Address parameter is present.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.3">Section 3.3.3</a>)
   ---------

   Note 3: An INIT ACK chunk MUST NOT contain the Host Name Address
   parameter.  The receiver of INIT ACK chunks containing a Host Name
   Address parameter MUST send an ABORT and MAY include an "Unresolvable
   Address" error cause.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2</a>)
   ---------

   B) If there is a Host Name parameter present in the received INIT or
      INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint shall resolve that host name to a
      list of IP address(es) and derive the transport address(es) of
      this peer by combining the resolved IP address(es) with the SCTP
      source port.

      The endpoint MUST ignore any other IP Address parameters if they
      are also present in the received INIT or INIT ACK chunk.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 64]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-65" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


      The time at which the receiver of an INIT resolves the host name
      has potential security implications to SCTP.  If the receiver of
      an INIT resolves the host name upon the reception of the chunk,
      and the mechanism the receiver uses to resolve the host name
      involves potential long delay (e.g., DNS query), the receiver may
      open itself up to resource attacks for the period of time while it
      is waiting for the name resolution results before it can build the
      State Cookie and release local resources.

      Therefore, in cases where the name translation involves potential
      long delay, the receiver of the INIT MUST postpone the name
      resolution till the reception of the COOKIE ECHO chunk from the
      peer.  In such a case, the receiver of the INIT SHOULD build the
      State Cookie using the received Host Name (instead of destination
      transport addresses) and send the INIT ACK to the source IP
      address from which the INIT was received.

      The receiver of an INIT ACK shall always immediately attempt to
      resolve the name upon the reception of the chunk.

      The receiver of the INIT or INIT ACK MUST NOT send user data
      (piggy-backed or stand-alone) to its peer until the host name is
      successfully resolved.

      If the name resolution is not successful, the endpoint MUST
      immediately send an ABORT with "Unresolvable Address" error cause
      to its peer.  The ABORT shall be sent to the source IP address
      from which the last peer packet was received.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2</a>)
   ---------

   B) If there is a Host Name Address parameter present in the received
      INIT or INIT ACK chunk, the endpoint MUST immediately send an
      ABORT and MAY include an "Unresolvable Address" error cause
      to its peer.  The ABORT SHALL be sent to the source
      IP address from which the last peer packet was received.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.










<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 65]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-66" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-11.2.4.1">Section 11.2.4.1</a>)
   ---------

   The use of the host name feature in the INIT chunk could be used to
   flood a target DNS server.  A large backlog of DNS queries, resolving
   the host name received in the INIT chunk to IP addresses, could be
   accomplished by sending INITs to multiple hosts in a given domain.
   In addition, an attacker could use the host name feature in an
   indirect attack on a third party by sending large numbers of INITs to
   random hosts containing the host name of the target.  In addition to
   the strain on DNS resources, this could also result in large numbers
   of INIT ACKs being sent to the target.  One method to protect against
   this type of attack is to verify that the IP addresses received from
   DNS include the source IP address of the original INIT.  If the list
   of IP addresses received from DNS does not include the source IP
   address of the INIT, the endpoint MAY silently discard the INIT.
   This last option will not protect against the attack against the DNS.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-11.2.4.1">Section 11.2.4.1</a>)
   ---------

   Support for the Host Name Address parameter has been removed from the
   protocol.  Endpoints receiving INIT or INIT ACK chunks containing the
   Host Name Address parameter MUST send an ABORT chunk in response and
   MAY include an "Unresolvable Address" error cause.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.41.3" href="#section-3.41.3">3.41.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The usage of the Host Name Address parameter has been deprecated.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.42" href="#section-3.42">3.42</a>.  Conflicting Text regarding the 'Supported Address Types'</span>
<span class="h3">       Parameter</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.42.1" href="#section-3.42.1">3.42.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   <a href="./rfc4960#section-5.1.2">Section&nbsp;5.1.2 of [RFC4960]</a> contains conflicting text regarding the
   receipt of an SCTP packet containing an INIT chunk sent from an
   address for which the corresponding address type is not listed in the
   'Supported Address Types' parameter.  The text states that the
   association MUST be aborted, but it also states that the association
   SHOULD be established and there SHOULD NOT be any error indication.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 66]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-67" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.42.2" href="#section-3.42.2">3.42.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of INIT may include a 'Supported Address Types' parameter
   in the INIT to indicate what types of address are acceptable.  When
   this parameter is present, the receiver of INIT (initiate) MUST
   either use one of the address types indicated in the Supported
   Address Types parameter when responding to the INIT, or abort the
   association with an "Unresolvable Address" error cause if it is
   unwilling or incapable of using any of the address types indicated by
   its peer.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2</a>)
   ---------

   The sender of INIT chunks MAY include a 'Supported Address Types'
   parameter in the INIT to indicate what types of addresses are
   acceptable.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.42.3" href="#section-3.42.3">3.42.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The conflicting text has been removed.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.43" href="#section-3.43">3.43</a>.  Integration of <a href="./rfc6096">RFC 6096</a></span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.43.1" href="#section-3.43.1">3.43.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC6096">RFC6096</a>] updates [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] by adding the "Chunk Flags" registry.
   This should be integrated into the base specification.















<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 67]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-68" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.43.2" href="#section-3.43.2">3.43.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-14.1">Section 14.1</a>)
   ---------

   14.1.  IETF-Defined Chunk Extension

      The assignment of new chunk parameter type codes is done through
      an IETF Consensus action, as defined in [<a href="./rfc2434">RFC2434</a>].  Documentation
      of the chunk parameter MUST contain the following information:

      a) A long and short name for the new chunk type.

      b) A detailed description of the structure of the chunk, which
         MUST conform to the basic structure defined in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>.

      c) A detailed definition and description of the intended use of
         each field within the chunk, including the chunk flags if any.

      d) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk
         type within the operation of the protocol.

      The last chunk type (255) is reserved for future extension if
      necessary.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-14.1">Section 14.1</a>)
   ---------

   14.1.  IETF-Defined Chunk Extension

      The assignment of new chunk type codes is done through an IETF
      Review action, as defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].  Documentation for a new
      chunk MUST contain the following information:

      a)  A long and short name for the new chunk type.

      b)  A detailed description of the structure of the chunk, which
          MUST conform to the basic structure defined in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>.

      c)  A detailed definition and description of the intended use of
          each field within the chunk, including the chunk flags
          (if any).  Defined chunk flags will be used as initial entries
          in the chunk flags table for the new chunk type.

      d)  A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk
          type within the operation of the protocol.



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 68]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-69" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


      The last chunk type (255) is reserved for future extension if
      necessary.

      For each new chunk type, IANA creates a registration table for the
      chunk flags of that type.  The procedure for registering
      particular chunk flags is described in <a href="#section-14.2">Section 14.2</a>.

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.3">Section 3.3</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-14.2">Section 14.2</a>)
   ---------

   14.2.  New IETF Chunk Flags Registration

      The assignment of new chunk flags is done through an RFC Required
      action, as defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].  Documentation for the chunk
      flags MUST contain the following information:

      a)  A name for the new chunk flag.

      b)  A detailed procedural description of the use of the new chunk
          flag within the operation of the protocol.  It MUST be
          considered that implementations not supporting the flag will
          send '0' on transmit and just ignore it on receipt.

      IANA selects a chunk flags value.  This MUST be one of 0x01, 0x02,
      0x04, 0x08, 0x10, 0x20, 0x40, or 0x80, which MUST be unique within
      the chunk flag values for the specific chunk type.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   Please note that Sections <a href="#section-14.2">14.2</a>, <a href="#section-14.3">14.3</a>, <a href="#section-14.4">14.4</a>, and <a href="#section-14.5">14.5</a> as shown in
   [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] will need to be renumbered when [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] is updated.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.43.3" href="#section-3.43.3">3.43.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC6096">RFC6096</a>] has been integrated, and the reference has been updated to
   [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 69]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-70" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.44" href="#section-3.44">3.44</a>.  Integration of <a href="./rfc6335">RFC 6335</a></span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.44.1" href="#section-3.44.1">3.44.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC6335">RFC6335</a>] updates [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] by updating procedures for the "Service
   Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry".  This should be
   integrated into the base specification.  Also, the "Guidelines for
   Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" reference needs to be
   changed to [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.44.2" href="#section-3.44.2">3.44.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-14.5">Section 14.5</a>)
   ---------

   SCTP services may use contact port numbers to provide service to
   unknown callers, as in TCP and UDP.  IANA is therefore requested to
   open the existing Port Numbers registry for SCTP using the following
   rules, which we intend to mesh well with existing Port Numbers
   registration procedures.  An IESG-appointed Expert Reviewer supports
   IANA in evaluating SCTP port allocation requests, according to the
   procedure defined in [<a href="./rfc2434">RFC2434</a>].

   Port numbers are divided into three ranges.  The Well Known Ports are
   those from 0 through 1023, the Registered Ports are those from 1024
   through 49151, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from
   49152 through 65535.  Well Known and Registered Ports are intended
   for use by server applications that desire a default contact point on
   a system.  On most systems, Well Known Ports can only be used by
   system (or root) processes or by programs executed by privileged
   users, while Registered Ports can be used by ordinary user processes
   or programs executed by ordinary users.  Dynamic and/or Private Ports
   are intended for temporary use, including client-side ports, out-of-
   band negotiated ports, and application testing prior to registration
   of a dedicated port; they MUST NOT be registered.

   The Port Numbers registry should accept registrations for SCTP ports
   in the Well Known Ports and Registered Ports ranges.  Well Known and
   Registered Ports SHOULD NOT be used without registration.  Although
   in some cases -- such as porting an application from TCP to SCTP --
   it may seem natural to use an SCTP port before registration
   completes, we emphasize that IANA will not guarantee registration of
   particular Well Known and Registered Ports.  Registrations should be
   requested as early as possible.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 70]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-71" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   Each port registration SHALL include the following information:

   o  A short port name, consisting entirely of letters (A-Z and a-z),
      digits (0-9), and punctuation characters from "-_+./*" (not
      including the quotes).

   o  The port number that is requested for registration.

   o  A short English phrase describing the port's purpose.

   o  Name and contact information for the person or entity performing
      the registration, and possibly a reference to a document defining
      the port's use.  Registrations coming from IETF working groups
      need only name the working group, but indicating a contact person
      is recommended.

   Registrants are encouraged to follow these guidelines when submitting
   a registration.

   o  A port name SHOULD NOT be registered for more than one SCTP port
      number.

   o  A port name registered for TCP MAY be registered for SCTP as well.
      Any such registration SHOULD use the same port number as the
      existing TCP registration.

   o  Concrete intent to use a port SHOULD precede port registration.
      For example, existing TCP ports SHOULD NOT be registered in
      advance of any intent to use those ports for SCTP.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-14.5">Section 14.5</a>)
   ---------

   SCTP services can use contact port numbers to provide service to
   unknown callers, as in TCP and UDP.  IANA is therefore requested to
   open the existing "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
   Registry" for SCTP using the following rules, which we intend to mesh
   well with existing port-number registration procedures.  An
   IESG-appointed expert reviewer supports IANA in evaluating SCTP port
   allocation requests, according to the procedure defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].
   The details of this process are defined in [<a href="./rfc6335" title="&quot;Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry&quot;">RFC6335</a>].

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 71]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-72" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.44.3" href="#section-3.44.3">3.44.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC6335">RFC6335</a>] has been integrated, and the reference has been updated to
   [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.45" href="#section-3.45">3.45</a>.  Integration of <a href="./rfc7053">RFC 7053</a></span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.45.1" href="#section-3.45.1">3.45.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC7053">RFC7053</a>] updates [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] by adding the I bit to the DATA chunk.
   This should be integrated into the base specification.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.45.2" href="#section-3.45.2">3.45.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a>)
   ---------

   The following format MUST be used for the DATA chunk:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type = 0    | Reserved|U|B|E|    Length                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              TSN                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Stream Identifier S      |   Stream Sequence Number n    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Payload Protocol Identifier                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       \                                                               \
       /                 User Data (seq n of Stream S)                 /
       \                                                               \
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Reserved: 5 bits

      Should be set to all '0's and ignored by the receiver.












<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 72]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-73" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a>)
   ---------

   The following format MUST be used for the DATA chunk:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type = 0    |  Res  |I|U|B|E|    Length                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              TSN                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Stream Identifier S      |   Stream Sequence Number n    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Payload Protocol Identifier                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       \                                                               \
       /                 User Data (seq n of Stream S)                 /
       \                                                               \
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Res: 4 bits

      SHOULD be set to all '0's and ignored by the receiver.

   I bit: 1 bit

      The (I)mmediate bit MAY be set by the sender whenever the sender
      of a DATA chunk can benefit from the corresponding SACK chunk
      being sent back without delay.  See <a href="./rfc7053#section-4">Section&nbsp;4 of [RFC7053]</a> for a
      discussion of the benefits.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.
















<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 73]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-74" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Append to <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   Whenever the sender of a DATA chunk can benefit from the
   corresponding SACK chunk being sent back without delay, the sender
   MAY set the I bit in the DATA chunk header.  Please note that why the
   sender has set the I bit is irrelevant to the receiver.

   Reasons for setting the I bit include, but are not limited to, the
   following (see <a href="./rfc7053#section-4">Section&nbsp;4 of [RFC7053]</a> for a discussion of the
   benefits):

   o  The application requests that the I bit of the last DATA chunk of
      a user message be set when providing the user message to the SCTP
      implementation (see <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>).

   o  The sender is in the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state.

   o  The sending of a DATA chunk fills the congestion or receiver
      window.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   Note: The SHUTDOWN chunk does not contain Gap Ack Block fields.
   Therefore, the endpoint should use a SACK instead of the SHUTDOWN
   chunk to acknowledge DATA chunks received out of order.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.2">Section 6.2</a>)
   ---------

   Note: The SHUTDOWN chunk does not contain Gap Ack Block fields.
   Therefore, the endpoint SHOULD use a SACK instead of the SHUTDOWN
   chunk to acknowledge DATA chunks received out of order.

   Upon receipt of an SCTP packet containing a DATA chunk with the I bit
   set, the receiver SHOULD NOT delay the sending of the corresponding
   SACK chunk, i.e., the receiver SHOULD immediately respond with the
   corresponding SACK chunk.

   Please note that this change is only about adding a paragraph.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 74]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-75" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> E))
   ---------

   E) Send

    Format: SEND(association id, buffer address, byte count [,context]
            [,stream id] [,life time] [,destination transport address]
            [,unordered flag] [,no-bundle flag] [,payload protocol-id] )
    -&gt; result

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a> E))
   ---------

   E) Send

    Format: SEND(association id, buffer address, byte count [,context]
            [,stream id] [,life time] [,destination transport address]
            [,unordered flag] [,no-bundle flag] [,payload protocol-id]
            [,sack-immediately])
    -&gt; result

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   New text: (Append optional parameter in item E) of <a href="#section-10.1">Section 10.1</a>)
   ---------

   o  sack-immediately flag - set the I bit on the last DATA chunk used
      for the user message to be transmitted.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.45.3" href="#section-3.45.3">3.45.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC7053">RFC7053</a>] has been integrated.









<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 75]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-76" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.46" href="#section-3.46">3.46</a>.  CRC32c Code Improvements</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.46.1" href="#section-3.46.1">3.46.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The code given for the CRC32c computations uses types such as "long",
   which may have different lengths on different operating systems or
   processors.  Therefore, the code needs to be changed, so that it uses
   specific types such as uint32_t.

   Some syntax errors and a comment also need to be fixed.

   We remind the reader that per <a href="#section-3.10.2">Section 3.10.2</a> of this document most of
   <a href="./rfc4960#appendix-C">Appendix&nbsp;C of RFC 4960</a> will be moved to <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a> in the bis
   document (thus the "Old text: (Appendix C)" and "New text:
   (Appendix B)" items in this section).




































<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 76]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-77" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.46.2" href="#section-3.46.2">3.46.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   /*************************************************************/
   /* Note Definition for Ross Williams table generator would   */
   /* be: TB_WIDTH=4, TB_POLLY=0x1EDC6F41, TB_REVER=TRUE        */
   /* For Mr. Williams direct calculation code use the settings */
   /* cm_width=32, cm_poly=0x1EDC6F41, cm_init=0xFFFFFFFF,      */
   /* cm_refin=TRUE, cm_refot=TRUE, cm_xorort=0x00000000        */
   /*************************************************************/

   /* Example of the crc table file */
   #ifndef __crc32cr_table_h__
   #define __crc32cr_table_h__

   #define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41
   #define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c&gt;&gt;8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&amp;0xFF])

   unsigned long  crc_c[256] =
   {
   0x00000000L, 0xF26B8303L, 0xE13B70F7L, 0x1350F3F4L,
   0xC79A971FL, 0x35F1141CL, 0x26A1E7E8L, 0xD4CA64EBL,
   0x8AD958CFL, 0x78B2DBCCL, 0x6BE22838L, 0x9989AB3BL,
   0x4D43CFD0L, 0xBF284CD3L, 0xAC78BF27L, 0x5E133C24L,
   0x105EC76FL, 0xE235446CL, 0xF165B798L, 0x030E349BL,
   0xD7C45070L, 0x25AFD373L, 0x36FF2087L, 0xC494A384L,
   0x9A879FA0L, 0x68EC1CA3L, 0x7BBCEF57L, 0x89D76C54L,
   0x5D1D08BFL, 0xAF768BBCL, 0xBC267848L, 0x4E4DFB4BL,
   0x20BD8EDEL, 0xD2D60DDDL, 0xC186FE29L, 0x33ED7D2AL,
   0xE72719C1L, 0x154C9AC2L, 0x061C6936L, 0xF477EA35L,
   0xAA64D611L, 0x580F5512L, 0x4B5FA6E6L, 0xB93425E5L,
   0x6DFE410EL, 0x9F95C20DL, 0x8CC531F9L, 0x7EAEB2FAL,
   0x30E349B1L, 0xC288CAB2L, 0xD1D83946L, 0x23B3BA45L,

   0xF779DEAEL, 0x05125DADL, 0x1642AE59L, 0xE4292D5AL,
   0xBA3A117EL, 0x4851927DL, 0x5B016189L, 0xA96AE28AL,
   0x7DA08661L, 0x8FCB0562L, 0x9C9BF696L, 0x6EF07595L,
   0x417B1DBCL, 0xB3109EBFL, 0xA0406D4BL, 0x522BEE48L,
   0x86E18AA3L, 0x748A09A0L, 0x67DAFA54L, 0x95B17957L,
   0xCBA24573L, 0x39C9C670L, 0x2A993584L, 0xD8F2B687L,
   0x0C38D26CL, 0xFE53516FL, 0xED03A29BL, 0x1F682198L,
   0x5125DAD3L, 0xA34E59D0L, 0xB01EAA24L, 0x42752927L,
   0x96BF4DCCL, 0x64D4CECFL, 0x77843D3BL, 0x85EFBE38L,
   0xDBFC821CL, 0x2997011FL, 0x3AC7F2EBL, 0xC8AC71E8L,
   0x1C661503L, 0xEE0D9600L, 0xFD5D65F4L, 0x0F36E6F7L,



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 77]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-78" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   0x61C69362L, 0x93AD1061L, 0x80FDE395L, 0x72966096L,
   0xA65C047DL, 0x5437877EL, 0x4767748AL, 0xB50CF789L,
   0xEB1FCBADL, 0x197448AEL, 0x0A24BB5AL, 0xF84F3859L,
   0x2C855CB2L, 0xDEEEDFB1L, 0xCDBE2C45L, 0x3FD5AF46L,
   0x7198540DL, 0x83F3D70EL, 0x90A324FAL, 0x62C8A7F9L,
   0xB602C312L, 0x44694011L, 0x5739B3E5L, 0xA55230E6L,
   0xFB410CC2L, 0x092A8FC1L, 0x1A7A7C35L, 0xE811FF36L,
   0x3CDB9BDDL, 0xCEB018DEL, 0xDDE0EB2AL, 0x2F8B6829L,
   0x82F63B78L, 0x709DB87BL, 0x63CD4B8FL, 0x91A6C88CL,
   0x456CAC67L, 0xB7072F64L, 0xA457DC90L, 0x563C5F93L,
   0x082F63B7L, 0xFA44E0B4L, 0xE9141340L, 0x1B7F9043L,
   0xCFB5F4A8L, 0x3DDE77ABL, 0x2E8E845FL, 0xDCE5075CL,
   0x92A8FC17L, 0x60C37F14L, 0x73938CE0L, 0x81F80FE3L,
   0x55326B08L, 0xA759E80BL, 0xB4091BFFL, 0x466298FCL,
   0x1871A4D8L, 0xEA1A27DBL, 0xF94AD42FL, 0x0B21572CL,
   0xDFEB33C7L, 0x2D80B0C4L, 0x3ED04330L, 0xCCBBC033L,
   0xA24BB5A6L, 0x502036A5L, 0x4370C551L, 0xB11B4652L,
   0x65D122B9L, 0x97BAA1BAL, 0x84EA524EL, 0x7681D14DL,
   0x2892ED69L, 0xDAF96E6AL, 0xC9A99D9EL, 0x3BC21E9DL,
   0xEF087A76L, 0x1D63F975L, 0x0E330A81L, 0xFC588982L,
   0xB21572C9L, 0x407EF1CAL, 0x532E023EL, 0xA145813DL,
   0x758FE5D6L, 0x87E466D5L, 0x94B49521L, 0x66DF1622L,
   0x38CC2A06L, 0xCAA7A905L, 0xD9F75AF1L, 0x2B9CD9F2L,
   0xFF56BD19L, 0x0D3D3E1AL, 0x1E6DCDEEL, 0xEC064EEDL,
   0xC38D26C4L, 0x31E6A5C7L, 0x22B65633L, 0xD0DDD530L,
   0x0417B1DBL, 0xF67C32D8L, 0xE52CC12CL, 0x1747422FL,
   0x49547E0BL, 0xBB3FFD08L, 0xA86F0EFCL, 0x5A048DFFL,
   0x8ECEE914L, 0x7CA56A17L, 0x6FF599E3L, 0x9D9E1AE0L,
   0xD3D3E1ABL, 0x21B862A8L, 0x32E8915CL, 0xC083125FL,
   0x144976B4L, 0xE622F5B7L, 0xF5720643L, 0x07198540L,
   0x590AB964L, 0xAB613A67L, 0xB831C993L, 0x4A5A4A90L,
   0x9E902E7BL, 0x6CFBAD78L, 0x7FAB5E8CL, 0x8DC0DD8FL,
   0xE330A81AL, 0x115B2B19L, 0x020BD8EDL, 0xF0605BEEL,
   0x24AA3F05L, 0xD6C1BC06L, 0xC5914FF2L, 0x37FACCF1L,
   0x69E9F0D5L, 0x9B8273D6L, 0x88D28022L, 0x7AB90321L,
   0xAE7367CAL, 0x5C18E4C9L, 0x4F48173DL, 0xBD23943EL,
   0xF36E6F75L, 0x0105EC76L, 0x12551F82L, 0xE03E9C81L,

   0x34F4F86AL, 0xC69F7B69L, 0xD5CF889DL, 0x27A40B9EL,
   0x79B737BAL, 0x8BDCB4B9L, 0x988C474DL, 0x6AE7C44EL,
   0xBE2DA0A5L, 0x4C4623A6L, 0x5F16D052L, 0xAD7D5351L,
   };

   #endif







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 78]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-79" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Appendix B)
   ---------

   &lt;CODE BEGINS&gt;
   /****************************************************************/
   /* Note: The definitions for Ross Williams's table generator    */
   /* would be TB_WIDTH=4, TB_POLY=0x1EDC6F41, TB_REVER=TRUE.      */
   /* For Mr. Williams's direct calculation code, use the settings */
   /* cm_width=32, cm_poly=0x1EDC6F41, cm_init=0xFFFFFFFF,         */
   /* cm_refin=TRUE, cm_refot=TRUE, cm_xorot=0x00000000.           */
   /****************************************************************/

   /* Example of the crc table file */
   #ifndef __crc32cr_h__
   #define __crc32cr_h__

   #define CRC32C_POLY 0x1EDC6F41UL
   #define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c&gt;&gt;8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&amp;0xFF])

   uint32_t crc_c[256] =
   {
   0x00000000UL, 0xF26B8303UL, 0xE13B70F7UL, 0x1350F3F4UL,
   0xC79A971FUL, 0x35F1141CUL, 0x26A1E7E8UL, 0xD4CA64EBUL,
   0x8AD958CFUL, 0x78B2DBCCUL, 0x6BE22838UL, 0x9989AB3BUL,
   0x4D43CFD0UL, 0xBF284CD3UL, 0xAC78BF27UL, 0x5E133C24UL,
   0x105EC76FUL, 0xE235446CUL, 0xF165B798UL, 0x030E349BUL,
   0xD7C45070UL, 0x25AFD373UL, 0x36FF2087UL, 0xC494A384UL,
   0x9A879FA0UL, 0x68EC1CA3UL, 0x7BBCEF57UL, 0x89D76C54UL,
   0x5D1D08BFUL, 0xAF768BBCUL, 0xBC267848UL, 0x4E4DFB4BUL,
   0x20BD8EDEUL, 0xD2D60DDDUL, 0xC186FE29UL, 0x33ED7D2AUL,
   0xE72719C1UL, 0x154C9AC2UL, 0x061C6936UL, 0xF477EA35UL,
   0xAA64D611UL, 0x580F5512UL, 0x4B5FA6E6UL, 0xB93425E5UL,
   0x6DFE410EUL, 0x9F95C20DUL, 0x8CC531F9UL, 0x7EAEB2FAUL,
   0x30E349B1UL, 0xC288CAB2UL, 0xD1D83946UL, 0x23B3BA45UL,
   0xF779DEAEUL, 0x05125DADUL, 0x1642AE59UL, 0xE4292D5AUL,
   0xBA3A117EUL, 0x4851927DUL, 0x5B016189UL, 0xA96AE28AUL,
   0x7DA08661UL, 0x8FCB0562UL, 0x9C9BF696UL, 0x6EF07595UL,
   0x417B1DBCUL, 0xB3109EBFUL, 0xA0406D4BUL, 0x522BEE48UL,
   0x86E18AA3UL, 0x748A09A0UL, 0x67DAFA54UL, 0x95B17957UL,
   0xCBA24573UL, 0x39C9C670UL, 0x2A993584UL, 0xD8F2B687UL,
   0x0C38D26CUL, 0xFE53516FUL, 0xED03A29BUL, 0x1F682198UL,
   0x5125DAD3UL, 0xA34E59D0UL, 0xB01EAA24UL, 0x42752927UL,
   0x96BF4DCCUL, 0x64D4CECFUL, 0x77843D3BUL, 0x85EFBE38UL,
   0xDBFC821CUL, 0x2997011FUL, 0x3AC7F2EBUL, 0xC8AC71E8UL,
   0x1C661503UL, 0xEE0D9600UL, 0xFD5D65F4UL, 0x0F36E6F7UL,
   0x61C69362UL, 0x93AD1061UL, 0x80FDE395UL, 0x72966096UL,
   0xA65C047DUL, 0x5437877EUL, 0x4767748AUL, 0xB50CF789UL,



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 79]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-80" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   0xEB1FCBADUL, 0x197448AEUL, 0x0A24BB5AUL, 0xF84F3859UL,
   0x2C855CB2UL, 0xDEEEDFB1UL, 0xCDBE2C45UL, 0x3FD5AF46UL,
   0x7198540DUL, 0x83F3D70EUL, 0x90A324FAUL, 0x62C8A7F9UL,
   0xB602C312UL, 0x44694011UL, 0x5739B3E5UL, 0xA55230E6UL,
   0xFB410CC2UL, 0x092A8FC1UL, 0x1A7A7C35UL, 0xE811FF36UL,
   0x3CDB9BDDUL, 0xCEB018DEUL, 0xDDE0EB2AUL, 0x2F8B6829UL,
   0x82F63B78UL, 0x709DB87BUL, 0x63CD4B8FUL, 0x91A6C88CUL,
   0x456CAC67UL, 0xB7072F64UL, 0xA457DC90UL, 0x563C5F93UL,
   0x082F63B7UL, 0xFA44E0B4UL, 0xE9141340UL, 0x1B7F9043UL,
   0xCFB5F4A8UL, 0x3DDE77ABUL, 0x2E8E845FUL, 0xDCE5075CUL,
   0x92A8FC17UL, 0x60C37F14UL, 0x73938CE0UL, 0x81F80FE3UL,
   0x55326B08UL, 0xA759E80BUL, 0xB4091BFFUL, 0x466298FCUL,
   0x1871A4D8UL, 0xEA1A27DBUL, 0xF94AD42FUL, 0x0B21572CUL,
   0xDFEB33C7UL, 0x2D80B0C4UL, 0x3ED04330UL, 0xCCBBC033UL,
   0xA24BB5A6UL, 0x502036A5UL, 0x4370C551UL, 0xB11B4652UL,
   0x65D122B9UL, 0x97BAA1BAUL, 0x84EA524EUL, 0x7681D14DUL,
   0x2892ED69UL, 0xDAF96E6AUL, 0xC9A99D9EUL, 0x3BC21E9DUL,
   0xEF087A76UL, 0x1D63F975UL, 0x0E330A81UL, 0xFC588982UL,
   0xB21572C9UL, 0x407EF1CAUL, 0x532E023EUL, 0xA145813DUL,
   0x758FE5D6UL, 0x87E466D5UL, 0x94B49521UL, 0x66DF1622UL,
   0x38CC2A06UL, 0xCAA7A905UL, 0xD9F75AF1UL, 0x2B9CD9F2UL,
   0xFF56BD19UL, 0x0D3D3E1AUL, 0x1E6DCDEEUL, 0xEC064EEDUL,
   0xC38D26C4UL, 0x31E6A5C7UL, 0x22B65633UL, 0xD0DDD530UL,
   0x0417B1DBUL, 0xF67C32D8UL, 0xE52CC12CUL, 0x1747422FUL,
   0x49547E0BUL, 0xBB3FFD08UL, 0xA86F0EFCUL, 0x5A048DFFUL,
   0x8ECEE914UL, 0x7CA56A17UL, 0x6FF599E3UL, 0x9D9E1AE0UL,
   0xD3D3E1ABUL, 0x21B862A8UL, 0x32E8915CUL, 0xC083125FUL,
   0x144976B4UL, 0xE622F5B7UL, 0xF5720643UL, 0x07198540UL,
   0x590AB964UL, 0xAB613A67UL, 0xB831C993UL, 0x4A5A4A90UL,
   0x9E902E7BUL, 0x6CFBAD78UL, 0x7FAB5E8CUL, 0x8DC0DD8FUL,
   0xE330A81AUL, 0x115B2B19UL, 0x020BD8EDUL, 0xF0605BEEUL,
   0x24AA3F05UL, 0xD6C1BC06UL, 0xC5914FF2UL, 0x37FACCF1UL,
   0x69E9F0D5UL, 0x9B8273D6UL, 0x88D28022UL, 0x7AB90321UL,
   0xAE7367CAUL, 0x5C18E4C9UL, 0x4F48173DUL, 0xBD23943EUL,
   0xF36E6F75UL, 0x0105EC76UL, 0x12551F82UL, 0xE03E9C81UL,
   0x34F4F86AUL, 0xC69F7B69UL, 0xD5CF889DUL, 0x27A40B9EUL,
   0x79B737BAUL, 0x8BDCB4B9UL, 0x988C474DUL, 0x6AE7C44EUL,
   0xBE2DA0A5UL, 0x4C4623A6UL, 0x5F16D052UL, 0xAD7D5351UL,
   };

   #endif

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.10">Section 3.10</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 80]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-81" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   /* Example of table build routine */

   #include &lt;stdio.h&gt;
   #include &lt;stdlib.h&gt;

   #define OUTPUT_FILE   "crc32cr.h"
   #define CRC32C_POLY    0x1EDC6F41L
   FILE *tf;
   unsigned long
   reflect_32 (unsigned long b)
   {
     int i;
     unsigned long rw = 0L;

     for (i = 0; i &lt; 32; i++){
         if (b &amp; 1)
           rw |= 1 &lt;&lt; (31 - i);
         b &gt;&gt;= 1;
     }
     return (rw);
   }

   unsigned long
   build_crc_table (int index)
   {
     int i;
     unsigned long rb;

     rb = reflect_32 (index);

     for (i = 0; i &lt; 8; i++){
         if (rb &amp; 0x80000000L)
          rb = (rb &lt;&lt; 1) ^ CRC32C_POLY;
         else
          rb &lt;&lt;= 1;
     }
     return (reflect_32 (rb));
   }

   main ()

   {
     int i;




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 81]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-82" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


     printf ("\nGenerating CRC-32c table file &lt;%s&gt;\n",
     OUTPUT_FILE);
     if ((tf = fopen (OUTPUT_FILE, "w")) == NULL){
         printf ("Unable to open %s\n", OUTPUT_FILE);
         exit (1);
     }
     fprintf (tf, "#ifndef __crc32cr_table_h__\n");
     fprintf (tf, "#define __crc32cr_table_h__\n\n");
     fprintf (tf, "#define CRC32C_POLY 0x%08lX\n",
     CRC32C_POLY);
     fprintf (tf,
     "#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c&gt;&gt;8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&amp;0xFF])\n");
     fprintf (tf, "\nunsigned long  crc_c[256] =\n{\n");
     for (i = 0; i &lt; 256; i++){
         fprintf (tf, "0x%08lXL, ", build_crc_table (i));
         if ((i &amp; 3) == 3)
           fprintf (tf, "\n");
     }
     fprintf (tf, "};\n\n#endif\n");

     if (fclose (tf) != 0)
       printf ("Unable to close &lt;%s&gt;." OUTPUT_FILE);
     else
       printf ("\nThe CRC-32c table has been written to &lt;%s&gt;.\n",
         OUTPUT_FILE);
   }

   ---------
   New text: (Appendix B)
   ---------

   /* Example of table build routine */

   #include &lt;stdio.h&gt;
   #include &lt;stdlib.h&gt;

   #define OUTPUT_FILE   "crc32cr.h"
   #define CRC32C_POLY    0x1EDC6F41UL

   static FILE *tf;

   static uint32_t
   reflect_32(uint32_t b)
   {
     int i;
     uint32_t rw = 0UL;

     for (i = 0; i &lt; 32; i++) {



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 82]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-83" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


         if (b &amp; 1)
           rw |= 1 &lt;&lt; (31 - i);
         b &gt;&gt;= 1;
     }
     return (rw);
   }

   static uint32_t
   build_crc_table (int index)
   {
     int i;
     uint32_t rb;

     rb = reflect_32(index);

     for (i = 0; i &lt; 8; i++) {
         if (rb &amp; 0x80000000UL)
          rb = (rb &lt;&lt; 1) ^ (uint32_t)CRC32C_POLY;
         else
          rb &lt;&lt;= 1;
     }
     return (reflect_32(rb));
   }

   int
   main (void)
   {
     int i;

     printf("\nGenerating CRC32c table file &lt;%s&gt;.\n",
     OUTPUT_FILE);
     if ((tf = fopen(OUTPUT_FILE, "w")) == NULL) {
         printf("Unable to open %s.\n", OUTPUT_FILE);
         exit (1);
     }
     fprintf(tf, "#ifndef __crc32cr_h__\n");
     fprintf(tf, "#define __crc32cr_h__\n\n");
     fprintf(tf, "#define CRC32C_POLY 0x%08XUL\n",
       (uint32_t)CRC32C_POLY);
     fprintf(tf,
       "#define CRC32C(c,d) (c=(c&gt;&gt;8)^crc_c[(c^(d))&amp;0xFF])\n");
     fprintf(tf, "\nuint32_t crc_c[256] =\n{\n");
     for (i = 0; i &lt; 256; i++) {
         fprintf(tf, "0x%08XUL,", build_crc_table (i));
         if ((i &amp; 3) == 3)






<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 83]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-84" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


           fprintf(tf, "\n");
         else
           fprintf(tf, " ");
     }
     fprintf(tf, "};\n\n#endif\n");

     if (fclose(tf) != 0)
       printf("Unable to close &lt;%s&gt;.\n", OUTPUT_FILE);
     else
       printf("\nThe CRC32c table has been written to &lt;%s&gt;.\n",
         OUTPUT_FILE);
   }

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from <a href="#section-3.10">Section 3.10</a>.  It is in final form and is not
   further updated in this document.

   ---------
   Old text: (Appendix C)
   ---------

   /* Example of crc insertion */

   #include "crc32cr.h"

   unsigned long
   generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     unsigned int i;
     unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;
     unsigned long result;
     unsigned char byte0,byte1,byte2,byte3;

     for (i = 0; i &lt; length; i++){
         CRC32C(crc32, buffer[i]);
     }

     result = ~crc32;

     /*  result now holds the negated polynomial remainder;
      *  since the table and algorithm is "reflected" [williams95].
      *  That is, result has the same value as if we mapped the message
      *  to a polynomial, computed the host-bit-order polynomial
      *  remainder, performed final negation, then did an end-for-end
      *  bit-reversal.
      *  Note that a 32-bit bit-reversal is identical to four inplace
      *  8-bit reversals followed by an end-for-end byteswap.
      *  In other words, the bytes of each bit are in the right order,



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 84]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-85" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


      *  but the bytes have been byteswapped.  So we now do an explicit
      *  byteswap.  On a little-endian machine, this byteswap and
      *  the final ntohl cancel out and could be elided.
      */

     byte0 = result &amp; 0xff;
     byte1 = (result&gt;&gt;8) &amp; 0xff;
     byte2 = (result&gt;&gt;16) &amp; 0xff;
     byte3 = (result&gt;&gt;24) &amp; 0xff;
     crc32 = ((byte0 &lt;&lt; 24) |
              (byte1 &lt;&lt; 16) |
              (byte2 &lt;&lt; 8)  |
              byte3);
     return ( crc32 );
   }

   int
   insert_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     SCTP_message *message;
     unsigned long crc32;
     message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = 0L;
     crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
     /* and insert it into the message */
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = htonl(crc32);
     return 1;
   }

   int
   validate_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     SCTP_message *message;
     unsigned int i;
     unsigned long original_crc32;
     unsigned long crc32 = ~0L;

     /* save and zero checksum */
     message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
     original_crc32 = ntohl(message-&gt;common_header.checksum);
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = 0L;
     crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
     return ((original_crc32 == crc32)? 1 : -1);
   }







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 85]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-86" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (Appendix B)
   ---------

   /* Example of crc insertion */

   #include "crc32cr.h"

   uint32_t
   generate_crc32c(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     unsigned int i;
     uint32_t crc32 = 0xffffffffUL;
     uint32_t result;
     uint8_t byte0, byte1, byte2, byte3;

     for (i = 0; i &lt; length; i++) {
         CRC32C(crc32, buffer[i]);
     }

     result = ~crc32;

     /*  result now holds the negated polynomial remainder,
      *  since the table and algorithm are "reflected" [williams95].
      *  That is, result has the same value as if we mapped the message
      *  to a polynomial, computed the host-bit-order polynomial
      *  remainder, performed final negation, and then did an
      *  end-for-end bit-reversal.
      *  Note that a 32-bit bit-reversal is identical to four in-place
      *  8-bit bit-reversals followed by an end-for-end byteswap.
      *  In other words, the bits of each byte are in the right order,
      *  but the bytes have been byteswapped.  So, we now do an explicit
      *  byteswap.  On a little-endian machine, this byteswap and
      *  the final ntohl cancel out and could be elided.
      */

     byte0 = result &amp; 0xff;
     byte1 = (result&gt;&gt;8) &amp; 0xff;
     byte2 = (result&gt;&gt;16) &amp; 0xff;
     byte3 = (result&gt;&gt;24) &amp; 0xff;
     crc32 = ((byte0 &lt;&lt; 24) |
              (byte1 &lt;&lt; 16) |
              (byte2 &lt;&lt; 8)  |
              byte3);
     return (crc32);
   }

   int



<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 86]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-87" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   insert_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     SCTP_message *message;
     uint32_t crc32;
     message = (SCTP_message *) buffer;
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = 0UL;
     crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer,length);
     /* and insert it into the message */
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = htonl(crc32);
     return 1;
   }

   int
   validate_crc32(unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int length)
   {
     SCTP_message *message;
     unsigned int i;
     uint32_t original_crc32;
     uint32_t crc32;

     /* save and zero checksum */
     message = (SCTP_message *)buffer;
     original_crc32 = ntohl(message-&gt;common_header.checksum);
     message-&gt;common_header.checksum = 0L;
     crc32 = generate_crc32c(buffer, length);
     return ((original_crc32 == crc32)? 1 : -1);
   }
   &lt;CODE ENDS&gt;

   This text has been modified by multiple errata.  It includes
   modifications from Sections <a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a> and <a href="#section-3.10">3.10</a>.  It is in final form and is
   not further updated in this document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.46.3" href="#section-3.46.3">3.46.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The code was changed to use platform-independent types.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.47" href="#section-3.47">3.47</a>.  Clarification of Gap Ack Blocks in SACK Chunks</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.47.1" href="#section-3.47.1">3.47.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The Gap Ack Blocks in the SACK chunk are intended to be isolated.
   However, this is not mentioned with normative text.

   This issue was reported as part of an errata for [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>] with
   Errata ID 5202.





<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 87]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-88" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.47.2" href="#section-3.47.2">3.47.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.4">Section 3.3.4</a>)
   ---------

   The SACK also contains zero or more Gap Ack Blocks.  Each Gap Ack
   Block acknowledges a subsequence of TSNs received following a break
   in the sequence of received TSNs.  By definition, all TSNs
   acknowledged by Gap Ack Blocks are greater than the value of the
   Cumulative TSN Ack.

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.4">Section 3.3.4</a>)
   ---------

   The SACK also contains zero or more Gap Ack Blocks.  Each Gap Ack
   Block acknowledges a subsequence of TSNs received following a break
   in the sequence of received TSNs.  The Gap Ack Blocks SHOULD be
   isolated.  This means that the TSN just before each Gap Ack Block and
   the TSN just after each Gap Ack Block have not been received.  By
   definition, all TSNs acknowledged by Gap Ack Blocks are greater than
   the value of the Cumulative TSN Ack.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-3.3.4">Section 3.3.4</a>)
   ---------

   Gap Ack Blocks:

      These fields contain the Gap Ack Blocks.  They are repeated for
      each Gap Ack Block up to the number of Gap Ack Blocks defined in
      the Number of Gap Ack Blocks field.  All DATA chunks with TSNs
      greater than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block
      Start) and less than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
      Block End) of each Gap Ack Block are assumed to have been received
      correctly.











<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 88]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-89" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-3.3.4">Section 3.3.4</a>)
   ---------

   Gap Ack Blocks:

      These fields contain the Gap Ack Blocks.  They are repeated for
      each Gap Ack Block up to the number of Gap Ack Blocks defined in
      the Number of Gap Ack Blocks field.  All DATA chunks with TSNs
      greater than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block
      Start) and less than or equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
      Block End) of each Gap Ack Block are assumed to have been received
      correctly.  Gap Ack Blocks SHOULD be isolated.  This means that
      the DATA chunks with TSNs equal to (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack
      Block Start - 1) and (Cumulative TSN Ack + Gap Ack Block End + 1)
      have not been received.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.47.3" href="#section-3.47.3">3.47.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   Normative text describing the intended usage of Gap Ack Blocks has
   been added.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.48" href="#section-3.48">3.48</a>.  Handling of SSN Wraparounds</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.48.1" href="#section-3.48.1">3.48.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The Stream Sequence Number (SSN) is used for preserving the ordering
   of user messages within each SCTP stream.  The SSN is limited to
   16 bits.  Therefore, multiple wraparounds of the SSN might happen
   within the current send window.  To allow the receiver to deliver
   ordered user messages in the correct sequence, the sender should
   limit the number of user messages per stream.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.48.2" href="#section-3.48.2">3.48.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   Note: The data sender SHOULD NOT use a TSN that is more than 2**31 -
   1 above the beginning TSN of the current send window.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 89]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-90" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>)
   ---------

   Note: The data sender SHOULD NOT use a TSN that is more than
   2**31 - 1 above the beginning TSN of the current send window.
   Note: For each stream, the data sender SHOULD NOT have more than
   2**16 - 1 ordered user messages in the current send window.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.48.3" href="#section-3.48.3">3.48.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The data sender is required to limit the number of ordered user
   messages within the current send window.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.49" href="#section-3.49">3.49</a>.  Update to <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> Boilerplate Text</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.49.1" href="#section-3.49.1">3.49.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   The text to be used to refer to the terms ("key words") defined in
   [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>] has been updated by [<a href="./rfc8174" title="&quot;Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words&quot;">RFC8174</a>].  This needs to be integrated
   into the base specification.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.49.2" href="#section-3.49.2">3.49.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>)
   ---------

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

   ---------
   New text: (<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>)
   ---------

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title="&quot;Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words&quot;">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 90]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-91" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.49.3" href="#section-3.49.3">3.49.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The text has been updated to the text specified in [<a href="./rfc8174" title="&quot;Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words&quot;">RFC8174</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.50" href="#section-3.50">3.50</a>.  Removal of Text (Previously Missed in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>)</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.50.1" href="#section-3.50.1">3.50.1</a>.  Description of the Problem</span>

   When integrating the changes to <a href="./rfc2960#section-7.2.4">Section&nbsp;7.2.4 of [RFC2960]</a> as
   described in <a href="./rfc4460#section-2.8.2">Section&nbsp;2.8.2 of [RFC4460]</a>, some text was not removed
   and is therefore still in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.50.2" href="#section-3.50.2">3.50.2</a>.  Text Changes to the Document</span>

   ---------
   Old text: (<a href="#section-7.2.4">Section 7.2.4</a>)
   ---------

   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 3 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: (<a href="#section-7.2.4">Section 7.2.4</a>)
   ---------

   This text is in final form and is not further updated in this
   document.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.50.3" href="#section-3.50.3">3.50.3</a>.  Solution Description</span>

   The text has finally been removed.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   <a href="#section-3.44">Section 3.44</a> of this document suggests new text that would update the
   "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" for SCTP
   to be consistent with [<a href="./rfc6335" title="&quot;Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry&quot;">RFC6335</a>].

   IANA has confirmed that it is OK to make the proposed text change in
   an upcoming Standards Track document that will update [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].
   IANA is not asked to perform any other action, and this document does
   not request that IANA make a change to any registry.




<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 91]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-92" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   This document does not add any security considerations to those given
   in [<a href="./rfc4960" title="&quot;Stream Control Transmission Protocol&quot;">RFC4960</a>].

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
              <a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>&gt;.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC1122">RFC1122</a>]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, <a href="./rfc1122">RFC 1122</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC1858">RFC1858</a>]  Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
              Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", <a href="./rfc1858">RFC 1858</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1858, October 1995,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1858">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1858</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2960">RFC2960</a>]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
              Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
              Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", <a href="./rfc2960">RFC 2960</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2960, October 2000,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2960">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2960</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              <a href="./rfc3168">RFC 3168</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168</a>&gt;.







<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 92]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-93" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC4460">RFC4460</a>]  Stewart, R., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Caro, A., and
              M. Tuexen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Specification Errata and Issues", <a href="./rfc4460">RFC 4460</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4460, April 2006,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4460">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4460</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5681">RFC5681</a>]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", <a href="./rfc5681">RFC 5681</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6096">RFC6096</a>]  Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP) Chunk Flags Registration", <a href="./rfc6096">RFC 6096</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6096, January 2011,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6096">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6096</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6298">RFC6298</a>]  Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
              "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", <a href="./rfc6298">RFC 6298</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6335">RFC6335</a>]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp165">BCP 165</a>,
              <a href="./rfc6335">RFC 6335</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7053">RFC7053</a>]  Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK-
              IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", <a href="./rfc7053">RFC 7053</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
              <a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8311">RFC8311</a>]  Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
              Notification (ECN) Experimentation", <a href="./rfc8311">RFC 8311</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311</a>&gt;.










<span class="grey">Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 93]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-94" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8540">RFC 8540</a>           SCTP: Errata and Issues in <a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>     February 2019</span>


Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Pontus Andersson, Eric W. Biederman, Cedric
   Bonnet, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Benjamin Kaduk, Mirja
   Kuehlewind, Peter Lei, Gyula Marosi, Lionel Morand, Jeff Morriss,
   Karen E. E. Nielsen, Tom Petch, Kacheong Poon, Julien Pourtet, Irene
   Ruengeler, Michael Welzl, and Qiaobing Xie for their invaluable
   comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   Netflix, Inc.
   Chapin, SC  29036
   United States of America

   Email: randall@lakerest.net


   Michael Tuexen
   Muenster University of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstrasse 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de


   Maksim Proshin
   Ericsson
   Kistavaegen 25
   Stockholm  164 80
   Sweden

   Email: mproshin@tieto.mera.ru
















Stewart, et al.               Informational                    [Page 94]
</pre>