RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movingforward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]
"Caitlin Bestler" <Caitlin.Bestler@neterion.com> Fri, 30 November 2007 18:40 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 1IyAmt-0000i6-R9; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:31 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyAmt-0000hZ-3u for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:31 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyAms-0000hL-PM for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:30 -0500
Received: from mx.neterion.com ([72.1.205.142] helo=owa.neterion.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyAms-0001wb-8w for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:30 -0500
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 movingforward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:11 -0500
Message-ID: <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD77029FB9FA@nekter>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804597A88@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal movingforward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: Acgyqr+YWa5juMFZT+uGzGRouICCZQAATuRQADTyeEA=
References: <C186A11B-5858-4905-A4F9-E6DFC920B585@windriver.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804597A88@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
From: Caitlin Bestler <Caitlin.Bestler@neterion.com>
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) [mailto:ananth@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:21 PM > To: David Borman > Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG > Subject: RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal > movingforward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?] > > Hi David, > > Firstly, I appreciate your explanations on TCP design and the > differences between standard and implementation, those are all good. > > That said, it appears that this is what is being said (at least that is > what is being inferred in the email exchanges) :- > > Case 1: > Abort by the application and OS > ================================== > > "The application OR any entity (like OS) which is instructed by the > application to abort the TCP connection when deemed necessary". "The OS > can abort the TCP connection when deemed necessary". These actions > seems > to enjoy full compliance of RFC 793/1122. > > Also an example : if there are 270 connections hanging out in persist > state for 110 days, the system administrator chooses to clear some of > these connections, now system administrator is acting on behalf of the > system and may not be the application, this is not a violation of the > RFC, it appears. > System administrators can kill an application. Allowing them to kill just some of the application's connections only helps the application. There is no point in any RFC telling sys admins/users that they MUST NOT do things that they inherently have the capability and right to do. _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Caitlin Bestler
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch