IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Wed, 02 July 2008 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40C83A6838; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705FD3A68BE for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i-kVUpEcMOBl for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7623A6838 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,738,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="47819600"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2008 15:37:38 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m62FbcNU014243; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:37:38 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m62Fbau5002072; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:37:38 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, 2 Jul 2008 08:36:35 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:35:34 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056AE237@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <486B9CEB.5040308@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.
Thread-Index: AcjcV2gvm9qzwrbQQJy/odyxllMxqwAACjGA
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056ADBF7@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056ADBFB@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <1e41a3230807012209j4a564e5bpd1b0b190c74e0ad1@mail.gmail.com><0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056AE1FC@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <486B9CEB.5040308@isi.edu>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2008 15:36:35.0363 (UTC) FILETIME=[691AE730:01C8DC59]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2234; t=1215013058; x=1215877058; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; 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=20[tcpm]=20TCP=20persist=20state=20issue. |Sender:=20; bh=tjbAkFn2xcHu6cO1sAqzYnJ8mHF33BssWS3htmVY2ww=; b=neyrVJejG1lfdVtYUrJNqdl/OIbXPfPx4SR45Xha21hgfjULkLkGpAKq2w hCaxFCSQ33lrGCoRdGhf/N9p9RtofdEpAeA4RVHdd+kU+ujYCOVIIlQZEQ6X w3vQHOQlWp;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> ...
> > Correct. The whole point of writing this draft is that there is 
> > confusion w.r.t RFC 1122 verbiage which needed clarification.
> ...
> > Again, the purpose of this document is not about various 
> scenarios and 
> > solutions , it is written as an informational draft to clarifiy RFC 
> > 1122 verbiage w.r.t persist state.
> 
> As Informational, it would not have that effect on a 
> Standard. If this is intended to redefine behavior, it needs 
> to be standards track.
> 
> I don't think highlighting a response in this case is needed 
> at all, since, as John pointed out, the behavior is already 
> permitted by 793.

Combining the above two statements, it appears that : "there is nothing
to change in the standard since RFC 793 permits it". RFC 1122 is
supposed to act as clarification for RFC 793 in many cases, which says "
A TCP MAY
   keep it's offered receive window closed indefinitely.  As long as the
   receiving TCP continues to send acknowledgments in response to the
   probe segments, the sending TCP MUST allow the connection to stay
   open.  The RFC goes on to say that it is important to remember that
   ACK (acknowledgement) segments that contain no data are not reliably
   transmitted by TCP.  Therefore zero window probing SHOULD be
   supported to prevent a connection from hanging forever if ACK
   segments that re-opens the window is lost.......

So, the thinking was to have a clarification draft which combines the
sentiments of RFC 793 and RFC 1122 and also the current issue's
relationship to DoS.

Well, I am not arguing agaianst your viewpoint, but trying to justify
why this draft was written in the first place. I can post a summary of
email exchanges and "conclusions" arrived after those email exchanges,
if that helps.

Thanks,
-Anantha 
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email