Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 23 March 2010 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369123A68AE for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.469
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U6LwuKHXZPQ8 for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0D03A68AB for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2N171wN009193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:00 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
References: <Acq++HhKPa/WNfamRcGprqSmMXJeBg==> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8C959A5B1897E9B3833F74C4"
X-MailScanner-ID: o2N171wN009193
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:07:10 -0000

Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> John,
> On 3/22/2010 2:41 PM, John Heffner wrote:
>> I read the new version of this draft.  For the record, my opinion
>> hasn't changed since the -00 version, which is that publication of
>> this draft as an RFC would be harmful.  I don't object to the simple
>> clarifying statement that a connection may be aborted while in the
>> persist state.  (I'm not sure this requires a new RFC.)  However, this
>> draft goes beyond that, implying that connections should be aborted
>> *because* they are in persist state.
> Where in the draft do we imply that "connections should be aborted
> *because* they are in persist state"? We are not implying that
> connections SHOULD be aborted because they are in persist state. Instead
> we are suggesting that connections should be *allowed* to be aborted in
> persist state. 

FWIW, that's my view.

> Currently RFC 1122 language is ambiguous in this regard
> when connections go into indefinite wait in ZWP condition.

I don't think that's true, however. RFC 1122 never mandates that an
endsystem cannot terminate a connection this way.

I'm ambivalent to this as well, I don't see the need for this doc, but
also don't see the harm.