IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 26 November 2007 21:03 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 1Iwl7J-0007TY-Hd; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:45 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwl7H-0007TS-J6 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:43 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwl7H-0007TK-9a for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:43 -0500
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwl7C-0003EM-FR for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:43 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.23,215,1194217200"; d="scan'208";a="158824298"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2007 22:03:38 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAQL3b4D026120; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:03:37 +0100
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAQL3bZZ018187; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:03:37 GMT
Received: from lwood-wxp01.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4147.cisco.com [10.61.80.50]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA27187; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:03:31 GMT
Message-Id: <200711262103.VAA27187@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:03:07 +0000
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, mallman@icir.org
From: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
In-Reply-To: <474AFB2A.9080504@isi.edu>
References: <20071126163305.326192FC402@lawyers.icir.org> <474AFB2A.9080504@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk; dkim=neutral
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
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

At Monday 26/11/2007 08:58 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:

>I see an OS that has to decide how to allocate resources:
>
>        a- leave them with existing apps and prohibit new ones
>
>        b- terminate existing apps to make room for new ones
>
>I expect that a reasonable, modern OS would do (a).

That presumes that all TCP connections are long-lived. It permits a few long-lived connections to tie up resources that could service short-lived connections.

(http, beep, xml-rpc and other short-lived transactions over TCP weren't invented when RFC1122 was written.)

L.

Saratoga: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/dtn/

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email