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

Murali Bashyam <> Fri, 02 April 2010 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E423A6863 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.175
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xk5YppRU5uZy for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8F73A693F for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exchsvr01.ocarina.local ([]) by exchsvr01.ocarina.local ([]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:07:31 -0700
From: Murali Bashyam <>
To: "" <>, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:07:28 -0700
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
Thread-Index: AcrSDu2qVdEb1uNzTmSxCix/OAy/7QACWS0Q
Message-ID: <EC7B72027914A242B991C029F5F213CF3EC5E60588@exchsvr01.ocarina.local>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:05:10 -0000

The attempt here via the socket option etc is to describe a guideline to normalize the persist condition connection failure to the excessive retransmissions condition. Note that for the latter connection failure, RFC 1122 says TCP SHOULD inform the application unless the app has disabled asynchronous reporting of soft errors. Are you suggesting that the guideline is unnecessary or out of scope for this document?

-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:46 PM
To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
Cc: Murali Bashyam;
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02 

> > I mean, sure, an app may want to not let a connection hang around 
> > forever.  But, can't it just ABORT whenever it wants?
> Yes, the application can ABORT the connection whenever it wants. 
> The socket option is suggested for multiple reasons (use cases) :-

Well, that all strikes me as thin.  I mean, I don't actually care what socket option anyone wants to add, but I agree with John that it doesn't seem like IETF work to me.  I certainly wouldn't suggest doing it in a draft that is meant as a simple clarification of previous RFCs.

I am fine with the simple clarification in this draft.  I would leave off the API gunk.  Just my hit.