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

[[e-mail] (Christos Zoulas)]

On Apr 14,  8:21am, [e-mail] ("Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02

| After reviewing this mailing list thread and the IETF 77
| discussion, David and I think there's support to make
| this a working group document.
| 
| As we see it, the path to take toward publication is:
| 
| 1) authors submit a draft-ietf-tcpm version of the document
| 2) authors need to come to closure with several people who
|    disagree with specification of a new socket option; this
|    seems to be the main point of contention
| 3) issue a WGLC once consensus is determined for the socket
|    option issue

- Shouldn't the variable be called something like SO_PERSISTTIMEO to follow
  suit with existing options and be in the proper namespace?
- Shouldn't the type of the persist_timeout_value be mentioned (again
  presumably either int or struct timeval, again to follow convention)
  as well if "int" is chosen the units (seconds)?
- There should also be a getsockopt(2) for this (for symmetry).
- Are there any existing implementations for this, and if so do they use
  one of the existing timers, or does this need a new one?

Best,

christos