IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 23:42 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuzCp-0003dA-Ev; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:42:07 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuzCn-0003WG-99 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:42:05 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuzCm-0003Tr-TK for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:42:04 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuzCm-0008GX-GS for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:42:04 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 15:42:03 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALNg3u4026835; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:42:03 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALNg3us025226; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:42:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:42:03 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:42:03 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE135@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4744B557.1080100@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: AcgskHVdDaPp4FB8Rr225a32/kl3gwABNm1Q
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 23:42:03.0360 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E368600:01C82C98]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1442; t=1195688523; x=1196552523; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=20Re=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=sWVKhA34cmxb3fz1cJwywl2quzHAIT9ehixqrzbY6ME=; b=I7fWovjT4qwPQeEvNdwkfbUS93/SztW/B4A23Nu5T9vTeWKqW4ik4oWWJV45jo89S1MhRYYf k3CLpr7A/6L0O3nEp+U3vxDTx0mB5LI4eCFmIFNDXKaNxFLt4562KPUnltTyAFxC+brMLjEBLd hF+YAXmY/wXzDOzeq7naik0cE=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 

> 
> RFC1122 allows you to abort a connection explicitly. It 
> allows you to have an user application timer to abort a 
> connection explicitly. It allows you to have an OS timer that 
> aborts a connection explicitly. To TCP, the OS and/or user 
> application are not distinguishable.
> 
> Now if you "set a local timer that initiates an explicit 
> call" and want to call that "implicit", that's fine. It's 
> still explicit ultimately (i.e., a real abort call is 
> issued), and still supported by RFC793 and RFC1122.

Ok, I am not sure if the rest of the WG feels the same way you do. If
what you say is true, implicit abort isn't an issue, so in theory I CAN
have a timer inside my embedded system (it can running anywhere inhe
system), and it can abort the connection through some interface.
Actually no-one would even notice this behaviour since one really can't
determine from "outside"" whether the connection was aborted implicitly
or explicitly.

So I gather that there is no need to have a standards change, since you
seem to say that RFC allows you to abort a connection which everyone is
aware of. But it is the same RFC that says you MUST persist a connection
indefinetly as long as you receive ACKS, so you are now providing an
external override for this MUST behaviour. 

Hmm... I would also like to get others comment on this... 

-Anantha
> 
> Joe
> 
> 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email