Message-ID: <4BA81434.5000808@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:07:00 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
References: <Acq++HhKPa/WNfamRcGprqSmMXJeBg==>	<C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997794@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>	<1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enig8C959A5B1897E9B3833F74C4"
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8C959A5B1897E9B3833F74C4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> John,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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. Instea=
d
> we are suggesting that connections should be *allowed* to be aborted in=

> persist state.=20

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.

Joe



--------------enig8C959A5B1897E9B3833F74C4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuoFDUACgkQE5f5cImnZrv0/QCcDpNYSAN8tqaCHODiqZbMQPge
p7QAoLkOsK2Sv44jQpL9V143rk4Vh1Mk
=QgSV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8C959A5B1897E9B3833F74C4--