Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

At 02:28 p.m. 08/12/2005, Ted Faber wrote:

> > >Do you mean there are no cases where application semantics can change 
> as a
> > >result of using this option.
> >
> > The application should care about application-layer timeouts, not about
> > transport-layer timeouts.
>
>TCP provides an interface that the application can use to set this
>timeout in RFC793.  Breaking applications that made use of it should not
>be done lightly, even if there are alternative mechanisms that those
>applications could have used.

Agreed.

But we agreed that the application-specified UTO would take precedence. And 
that, in the event a system-wide toggle existed, it would default to off.

So if you were using UTO, either the application programmer or the system 
administrator decided to do so.

(From a theoretical point of view, I'd probably argue that an application 
that really *breaks* because the user timeout ends up being longer than 2 
minutes or whatever, then it's already broken. And, even then, we have 
higher and lower limits for the UTO, which one would hope will keep the UTO 
"within acceptable values". But well, as I pointed out above, this would 
not even be the case.)

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org

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