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

I read the new version of this draft.  For the record, my opinion
hasn't changed since the -00 version, which is that publication of
this draft as an RFC would be harmful.  I don't object to the simple
clarifying statement that a connection may be aborted while in the
persist state.  (I'm not sure this requires a new RFC.)  However, this
draft goes beyond that, implying that connections should be aborted
*because* they are in persist state.

In practical terms, what is the difference between a connection in
persist state, and one where a receiver acknowledges one byte of data
every 10 seconds, never advertising a zero window?

  -John

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC
AEROSPACE CORP] <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> wrote:
> The authors have updated draft-ananth-persist, and asked
> us to poll the TCPM WG to have this particular document
> adopted with an Informational target.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-02.txt
>
> This has been discussed to some extent on the mailing
> list and at the Dublin meeting.  The authors have
> responded to comments received thus far and updated the
> document as it grew from the outcome of prior feedback
> on the draft-mahesh-persist-timeout document.
>
> Please respond if you either:
>
> (1) Support making this document a WG document with the
>    target for Informational.
>
> (2) Oppose making this document a WG document.
>
> Of course, other comments are also welcome :).
>
> It's relatively short, so if people could respond in the
> next 2 weeks, this would allow us to determine consensus
> during the week of the IETF meeting.
>
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>