IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 21 November 2007 22:38 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 1IuyDJ-0001Sn-Qf; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:38:33 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyDI-0001NU-Ss for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:38:32 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyDI-0001LJ-HB for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:38:32 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyDD-0000Io-16 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:38:32 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-88-149.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.88.149]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lALMc0I2020479; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4744B33B.10501@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:37:47 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE030@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE030@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1212853445=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
>> I don't think the doc should change 1122's text; IMO, TCP 
>> isn't the one who ought to make this decision, thus TCP ought 
>> to hang out as long as the application lets it.
> 
> Pl see my response to Ted where I explicitly ask a question and provide
> why I think there is "some" element of standarization here, your
> responses are welcome.

I saw your responses; I don't agree.

>> I don't think the doc should mention whether the timer should 
>> be embedded in TCP as an implementation decision. IMO, that 
>> crosses into a TCP mod, and since it isn't absolutely 
>> necessary, I don't see a reason to do so there. I do think it 
>> would be more useful to give the example of putting this in 
>> the kernel as a shared mechanism, with discussion to motivate it.
> 
> Hmm.. An informational RFC CAN recommend stuff, confused here??

Informational shouldn't recommend anything. It should state stuff. BCPs
are for recommendations, IMO.

Joe


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email