Re: Deadlocking in the transport

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

+1 million

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We will discuss this at the interim, but one comment, inline.
>
>
>> In part, it's the ignorance of the intermediary that causes this
>> particular problem.  If the intermediary was aware of the protocol
>> details then it might be able to recognize and avoid these situations,
>> but that seems a little too much to expect of intermediaries. Ruling
>> out the entire class of intermediary that operates purely at the
>> transport layer is extremely harsh.
>>
>> What is more likely here is that we describe this situation, explain
>> that it is impossible to prevent in the presence of intermediation,
>> and explain how to kill the right streams in order to ensure forward
>> progress doesn't stall indefinitely.
>>
>
> Exactly because intermediaries make things difficult, it's important to be
> certain that the intermediary behavior we are discussing is one that
> there's a strong argument for supporting. We have spent countless cycles on
> designing around uncertain and unknown intermediary behaviors in various
> parts of the IETF, and I don't want us to recreate these boogeymen. I think
> it's reasonable to rule out classes of middleboxes if we don't have strong
> arguments for supporting them.
>
>