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

John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com> Tue, 23 March 2010 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770BF3A6817 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p87NOeQkxV+w for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E873A6968 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwg30 with SMTP id 30so2738689wwg.31 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KXyrE1EnxkJGRLfx7O+nqkWd8uUMdlP2kKYT9qIEsLU=; b=oFLoDBRoga/fIvmAfGZ24lwHLJp3urkHsv57iITJ3N/3ZvFBWwWK2BUz7FHkcwKavr cHjINX8UbHcieZfOq1iikavzHSxJmyI32QqrsE2toxXHwOB05zlqmEjFpPVLVOHq77d4 SzFzuKKUXqfo9+vUcT206rvxcu8MGxbG4tI1c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=i4CpDIcDuROOzjSrZ8zgRDHhmeF8lBPorlJb95U0PIGvfpJeaIY7I4FkYB0gX64gCR aWX5Qz3qv07boIKoVqfXbYxE4On2kZT0igfAZpOmrcfLW7MkQo1syGE+DrmOBKRj5wcM YRCvSu8elFIWwl98L14JuwJrP5hwpXpHPbi28=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.179.133 with SMTP id h5mr2353190wem.62.1269310514130; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997794@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com> <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:15:14 -0400
Message-ID: <1e41a3231003221915n45b07a07v3a0ace6a879bb4e9@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:15:05 -0000

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> 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