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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 29 September 2008 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166773A6B6B; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8677D3A6AF3 for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jN-AQpOPAwz for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEAB3A6AEB for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8TNGmmI006784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Borman <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hash: SHA1


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.


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
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

tcpm mailing list