[btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Wed, 24 June 2009 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA063A6FDE for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.71
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nP+yNJJg-EKa for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8AF3A6ABF for <btns@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n5OKRCZI002358 for <btns@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:27:12 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM []) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id n5OKRCX5010654 for <btns@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:27:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost []) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5OKH79I009968 for <btns@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:17:07 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n5OKH7p9009967 for btns@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:17:07 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:17:07 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: btns@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20090624201707.GY1308@Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Subject: [btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?
X-BeenThere: btns@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Better-Than-Nothing-Security Working Group discussion list <btns.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/btns>
List-Post: <mailto:btns@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:51:31 -0000

The last DISCUSS on draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-10 concerns what
the WG thinks is the best way for ULPs to handle connection latch
transitions to the BROKEN state in the _absence_ of connection latching
APIs for applications (or when apps are not aware of such APIs).

The two options are:

a) The ULP MAY/SHOULD/MUST pretend that the equivalent of a TCP reset
   occurred and the connection latch is transition to the CLOSED state
   (and destroyed/cleaned up);

b) The ULP MAY/SHOULD/MUST act as though bits aren't moving and let ULP
   and/or application-layer timeout processing decide if and when to
   close the connection (and underlying connection latch).

(b) means potentially hanging forever, but that's generally true now
with existing ULPs.

The I-D says (b), with "SHOULD".

I'd be just as happy with (a), SHOULD, (b) MAY.  I would not be happy
with (a), MUST, nor with (b), MUST.