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 This list is no longer active.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 Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
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