Re: [EME] Re: transport recovery at the APP layer ?

On 11/17/06, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> > ... which is a layering problem that HTTP 1.1 fixed by mandating
> > persistent connections.
>
> See RFC2616, sec 8.1.1:
>
>  HTTP implementations SHOULD implement persistent connections.

Right, my bad.  I meant making them the default.

> When they don't, the old semantics persist.

Old semantics persist because of compatibility rules, but I still
consider the layering problem "fixed".

Anyhow, my point is that assuming ACKed FINs meant something to the
application would break some applications that don't already make that
assumption.

> >> HTTP isn't the only application around, as you note. Unless this RG is
> >> focused on HTTP interactions with middleboxes, it needs to consider the
> >> impact on all applications.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear you say that, because IMO, doing so requires keeping
> > our layers layered and not assuming application semantics to TCP
> > signals.
>
> Doing that means keeping TCP semantics, which means that a FIN/ACK means
> what a FIN/ACK means - that the -endpoint- got the data, not that a
> middlebox somewhere else did.

Right.  Middleboxes should behave like they're in the middle, IMO 8-)

Mark.

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme