RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Sat, 24 November 2007 07:53 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 1Ivppi-00046I-Mv; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:53:46 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivpph-0003wq-Qd for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:53:45 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivppc-0003gP-AG for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:53:40 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivppb-0002O7-PR for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:53:40 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2007 23:53:39 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAO7rd9M010104; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:53:39 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAO7rdb4018426; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:53:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:53:38 -0800
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 moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:53:37 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580452BC32@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47467D82.9070501@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: AcgtoFpOgt2rNyvPSV26pdUJJ4LQZgAyeaQg
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2007 07:53:38.0893 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FBF2FD0:01C82E6F]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3170; t=1195890819; x=1196754819; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; 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=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=20Re=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=rIPip7uwkAgdnWMojRpaFCV3nBEE5F3BalhDw0sQIlU=; b=C+LfKgObUPLupCtqXEby2w9KDg/LZwiRl8c9N5oQd/ekdCg8TlYp67MWEVDZ0ytBe7Yl9f9P 2HtXwJETX6LBUsCrIAao6qUktIM+is0/lkv7oqIX0I7y5Pp1f3hnPXBG;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: 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
> > Not sure what you mean above. RFC Compliance applies to > protocol, not > > to API. > > Please see RFC793. It specifies an API. Although the IETF > avoided APIs for a while, my understanding is that they are > again considered relevant standards work. I don't think so. The API's specified by 793 needs to treated as illustrational purposes only, they are not supposed to be interpreted as standards. Like you noted above : "It specifies an API" not "the API". Now RFC 793 doesn't talk about sockets, it doesn't talk about SO_LINGER and SO_KEEPALIVE for example, does it mean that any stack which implements API's not mentioned by RFC 793, isn't compliant? Nope. Again for example Keepalive option is very common in all TCP stacks, now RFC doesn't mention about TCP keepalives, does it make a particular TCP stack which implements Keepalive non-compliant, if so all TCP stacks out there (BSD, Linux etc.,) would become non-compliant :-) So, the point in short is if I have an socket API, which tells TCP, abort this connection after a stipulated time in persist state, the TCP implementation can start a timer (a new timer OR overload an unused timer) the moment the connection enters persist state, and can tear down the connection after the timer expiry. This action would be treated as compliant to 1122 as would the OS running a timer in it's own context and killing the TCP connection. The key point is that resulting action is the same no matter which method you chose to exercise a particular protocol action. > > > API is a local thing. One implementation can use sockets, whereas > > other can using something totally different, what matters > is what is > > sent on the wire and the response which is received. > > A protocol is defined by: > > - formats of packets sent on the wire > - state at the endpoints > - events that cause state transitions, packet emissions, > and signals to the application, triggered by: > - packets arriving > - upper layer commands (i.e., "application" events) > - time True but protocol (TCP) is one thing, upper (application) and lower layer (IP) interfaces is another. The protocol compliance is measured by "if I send something, what do you I get in response" "If I send something in state X, is the behaviour as defined by the standard?". Upper layer and lower interface are simply local and they tend to evolve and that is benefit of a generic design of a particular protocol layer. > > RFC793 is a good example of this set. > > The upper layer commmands and signals to the upper layer > constitute the API, and it is as much a part of the protocol > as packets on the wire. > Although there are a variety of ways to implement a SEND, > RECEIVE, OPEN, CLOSE, STATUS, or ABORT, all TCP > implementations must include them in their API, and they and > their basic arguments are specified in RFC793. Right, but these are the basic API's. The API's tend to expand and evolve and as long as their evolution doesn't "disturb" the standard, then we are golden. -Anantha _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Florian Weimer
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? speakeasy
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- RE: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? MURALI BASHYAM
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mark Allman
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Lloyd Wood
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Jakob Heitz
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ethan Blanton
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Ted Faber
- Summary of responses so far and proposal moving f… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- 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… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- 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… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Tom Petch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- 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… Joe Touch
- RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mark Allman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… John Heffner
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ted Faber
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… weddy
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Ethan Blanton
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… David Borman
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem? Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal movi… Erik Nordmark