RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movingforward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]

> -----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