Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] patch for packet-sctp for clearer wording of T-bit

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:10:34 +0800

Peter Lei (peterlei) wrote:

Please see the Implementer's Guide I-D for clarifications
(draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16); note this text is going
into the 2960bis. :-)

"Tag reflected" and "Tag not reflected" are more implementation
neutral as not all implementations use a "TCB", and "TCB" has
been removed from the text.  The T-bit indicates whether the
V-Tag is reflected, or not.

Thus, I think the current dissector should be left as is.
Ah, okay, sorry I missed that. (That also explains where that wording comes from... I guess I should have researched that.) 

Regards,
-Jeff


Jeff Morriss wrote:

Hi list,

Ethereal's description of the T-bit in SCTP (on Shutdown Complete's and
ABORTs) has always confused me.  The attached patch updates the wording
to be closer to what's in the RFC:


   T bit:  1 bit

      The T bit is set to 0 if the sender had a TCB that it destroyed.
      If the sender did not have a TCB it should set this bit to 1.

Please consider for inclusion.

Regards,
-Jeff