RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 20:22 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 1Iuw5h-0002pH-0S; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:22:33 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuw5f-0002ot-Pv for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:22:31 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuw5f-0002oh-EX for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:22:31 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuw5e-0007Mo-P3 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:22:31 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 12:22:31 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALKMUxU010054; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:22:30 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALKMGvG023425; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:22:30 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); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:22:29 -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: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:22:27 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE020@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071121192901.GF13024@hut.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: AcgsdQQG/9H1uvo3TZ6tvG9hkayUagAAEXdg
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 20:22:29.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D63B2D0:01C82C7C]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4010; t=1195676550; x=1196540550; 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=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=20Re=3A=20[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=wcAXNZByZ8zwOaoWo72N3KbKK4qQqjujqBIMWSji0y8=; b=H4FCCer0ckEGEEXMKEbN5fCc+ReVfElJiPSPkKMdxOvpAs9nfyeJQg1Ref9zo0yDPkmbLn0p LhxdQboDeY8R9sF2EL9d7TeOLZci22LUUW4A9/wIbhYu99XyBzPz6CJ9;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
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
> > B) Do we think this is an issue to be dealt at the transport layer? > > > > Here there seems to be mixed reaction. Granted that there may be > > many people feeling that this is an application issue and not a > > transport issue. > > That's not my assessment. Ok. > > It looks to me that there is considerable resistance to > standardizing the proposed solution, both on the grounds of > placement in the stack and on the limitations of the solution. Ok. That is the reason I pointed that, I believe the draft is not trying to "standardize" the solution part and that is informational and illustrational purpose only. It also mentions about the role of the application, which is again needed to be treated as informational. Do you see the need for making further clarifications that would make this look better?. > > [ For example, connections that advertise a large initial > window and then read a byte every (proposed timer size -1) > seconds will replicate the problem in the limit. Using timers > alone penalizes stopped connections when there is no resource > shortage. ] Good point. I would think that this is a non-standard behavior, corner case, why would an application do this in reality and how many times we have seen such behaviors? I don't want lengthy thread on this, but this is debatable, IMO. > > Despite the fairly lively discussion, I have seen little > support for standardizing this mechanism in TCP, outside the > authors and their collaborators, and strong resistance from > the members of the WG. > > Again, I'm not assessing consensus officially here, but > that's how I see it. Poin taken. But there seems to a confusion on what is being attempted to be standardized versus what is illustrational/informational purpose only. Just to re-state : WHY WE BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED FOR STANDARD CHANGE/EXISTING STANDARD CLARIFICATION ? ======================================================================== ============ [Few people have echoed this question, the response below ] I think there is a need for some standards change. Reason : I'll give an example of a TCP proxy which doesn't have an application on top per se. Now I would want to track the TCP connections ( yes there are several ways to do this) and monitor the health of those, in particular those that are "hanging" in persist state forever. I can use some timeout inside TCP to kick off and kill those connections depending on some policy, is this considered a voilation of RFC since RFC says " you MUST keep these connections open as long as you receive ACKs?" Someone can point out that the TCP proxy is not RFC compliant since it was "supposed" to keep these connections but terminated them, esp since there is no application which owns these TCP connections on this box? I immediately realise that there may be some responses like " TCP connection can be terminated anytime, so it should not be treated as non-compliance of RFC 1122", Is this a fair enough response?. I am confused, atleast I feel there is a need to say something like " TCP MUST keep the connection open as long as it gets ACKS, however, if the application OR a TCP implementation can abort this connection if it determines by its own means that the connection needs to be taken off".. I know.. I could have worded this better, but I hope my point is clear. Ok, if you think that there is nothing to be changed in TCP, but yet an implementation trying to abort TCP connections that persist indefinitely even though it is getting ACK's is fully compliant, then there is no further debate on this point, I would think. Can you and the other work group members clarify the above point? -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