Re: [tcpm] Persist condition clarification draft, now "clarification of sending behavior" draft

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
>Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:37 PM
>To: tcpm@ietf.org
>Subject: [tcpm] Persist condition clarification draft, now 
>"clarification of sending behavior" draft - comments solicited
>
>Apologies for sending this message twice, but did not realize that my 
>previous subject line attracted some spam filters (including my own).
>
>During the TCPM meeting in Dublin, Wes wanted to encourage readers on 
>this mailing list to read the short (2 pages if you remove the boiler 
>plate part) draft on "Clarification of Sender Behavior Under Persist 
>Condition" draft.
>
>To enable a quick read, I have cut and pasted the relevant sections 
>here. As noted in the meeting, this draft  tries to clarify the sender 
>behavior without getting into the details of the DoS scenario and the 
>possible solutions. Just to reiterate, it is this draft and not the 
>original persist draft that we are trying to table for 
>adoption as a WG 
>item.

Thanks for sending the text.  As just a TCPM participant: I've read
it, and I don't have any major problem with it, though there are
some editorial items I noticed.  I'm personally in-favor of sending
it through TCPM.  It seems very non-controversial to me in its
conclusion and the examination of existing code seemed to show that
it made sense to lay out in an RFC rather than just trusting that
implementers will understand 1122 and the potential for DoS if they
don't have some mechanism for reaping TCBs stalled in persist.

As TCPM co-chair, I hope other people will chime in for or against
taking this on as a WG item in the next couple weeks.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

Re: [tcpm] Persist condition clarification draft, now "clarification of sending behavior" draft - comments solicited