IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Fri, 23 November 2007 04:01 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 1IvPjH-0001GH-QW; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:01:23 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IvPjH-0001BN-2S for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:01:23 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvPjG-000193-M8 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:01:22 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvPjG-0001Pr-Ay for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:01:22 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2007 20:01:21 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAN41Loq029092; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:01:21 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAN41LAx012225; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:01:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:01:21 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:01:19 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580452BBEF@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4745D765.2090706@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: AcgtPVc54hKlQJkdTciPV87a1/lJqgARJyEg
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Nov 2007 04:01:21.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[81EFB610:01C82D85]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1058; t=1195790481; x=1196654481; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=20Re=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=/py4iq4uS+PKViagckt4vsPnrpg5s8PcxIy+ZMlRyKQ=; b=Qmvq8PRsasUoh6jtjmHoS0L+VHa1AidJ/8w7dOh8GLSy17d9RI4KlnTlmrvUzWr4YSxvnhZO wz3qnAPtLFEujyEG78KaHl94kaky5yu/1JJNA7HTcrPKSRG13YqJwNAn;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
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

 
> 
> Any abort under application control is compliant with 1122.
> 
> At which point, putting it inside the TCP code vs. elsewhere 
> in the OS, vs. in the application are all implementation 
> decisions. That would not be a change to TCP, and would not 
> include a recommendation to implement it inside TCP.

Correct. Anways an informational RFC should not be recommending anything
(which you also pointed out)

> 
> If you're asking to extend the TCP API to include access to a 
> TCP timer for this purpose - and thus to make that standard 
> (which is what an API extension would require), I think the 
> consensus has been that lazy application design is not a 
> motivation for unnecessarily overcomplicating the TCP API.

Not sure what you mean above. RFC Compliance applies to protocol, not to
API. API is a local thing. One implementation can use sockets, whereas
other can using something totally different, what matters is what is
sent on the wire and the response which is received. 

-Anantha


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email