Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]

On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:29 PM, MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
...
>> We never agreed to that; in fact, many of us feel that this is a
>> protocol feature that you have shown an artificial attack against  
>> which
>> is not necessarily more of a vulnerability than many other attacks
>> against other TCP features.
>
> Explain to me specifically and clearly what the INDEFINITE wait in  
> that ZWP state buys for the protocol or the application. Emphasis on  
> the word INDEFINITE, i.e your arguments cannot relying on using a  
> finite value to limit that duration. We know what its fallouts are.  
> Where is the justification for making it INDEFINITE? The document  
> doesn't give me enough justification for why it made that decision.

It's called robustness; that's what it buys you.  As long as a TCP  
session is up and responding, TCP does not abort it.  And an  
indefinite wait doesn't mean it'll never end, it just means you don't  
know *when* it is going to end.
			-David Borman


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm