Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David,

I agree overall with your observations; information seems reasonable,
but it also seems like clarification of existing standards is a TSVWG
issue, not a TCPM issue.

Joe

David Borman wrote:
> (WG co-chair hat on)
> 
> Its intended status is informational, so it isn't a protocol document. 
> The purpose is clarification of what the standards already say.
> Clarification of confusion is part of maintenance, even if the
> clarification is not needed by everyone.
> 
> (WG co-chair hat off)
> 
> I was one of the people pointing out that the implementation is separate
> from the protocol, and that though the protocol says that TCP must not
> abort connections in persist state, in the implementation the other
> parts of the OS or the application can abort a TCP connection at any
> time, which includes connections in persist state.  If this document
> helps to make that clearer for some implementors, then that is a good
> thing.
> 
>         -David
> 
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I'm not sure any of us disagreed with the content. The question is
> whether it's important, useful, or necessary (in that order) to address
> this, or whether we feel that the existing specs are sufficient.
> 
> My conclusion was that applications can always terminate TCP
> connections, and so can OS's - e.g., an OS can always just reboot.
> 
> This still sounds like an implementation guideline to me. It may be
> useful, and may be useful to document, but since it's implementation
> focused, I'm not sure I see it as a protocol document.
> 
> As a result, I don't think this needs to be a WG document (which is
> where I thought things were from Dublin). We talked there about it
> potentially being an errata to 1122, and even the problems with that
> approach.
> 
> Finally, it is not clear this is even in scope - it's not a modification
> to TCP, nor is it maintenance.
> 
> Joe
> 
> David Borman wrote:
>>>> At Dublin a presentation was made on draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt.
>>>> Not a lot of people had read the document at the time of the
>>>> presentation, but there didn't seem to be any objections to adopting it
>>>> as a TCPM WG document.
>>>>
>>>> The authors posted a summary to the mailing list, have responded to all
>>>> issues that were raised, and have a new version of the document ready
>>>> for publication.  We (Wes and I) feel that there is support for adopting
>>>> this as a WG document, but as always, we need to verify this on the
>>>> mailing list.  So, if you have any objections to adopting this as a WG
>>>> document, please speak up now.  Also speak up if you support adopting it
>>>> as a WG document.
>>>>
>>>> I'll be the first to say I support adopting this as a WG document.  If
>>>> there are no serious objections, the authors can submit their updated
>>>> version next week and Wes and I will add it to our list of WG documents.
>>>>
>>>>            -David Borman, TCPM WG co-chair
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjhYeAACgkQE5f5cImnZruu8QCgiDEcz+oayPXE0i8673R4rXxh
QDsAoMOmijUSrLPkpNpL+GZgreo1LuW8
=i3kh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm