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

[John Heffner <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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. Currently RFC 1122 language is ambiguous in this regard
> when connections go into indefinite wait in ZWP condition.

I'm pretty sure Section 7 describes automatically aborting connections
because they are in the persist state for some period of time.

  -John