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

John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com> Tue, 23 March 2010 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAD03A6B86 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.281
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLpsXSboPR0w for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8F23A6874 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwg30 with SMTP id 30so3268054wwg.31 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=30kybrvs1FslDfzXoQLvyNBMmmJHbt3AArDCLYnoJxI=; b=M23ZuJoXYjNdd5S0tWcyda4DGb0zB53yd6o9sBU3MZH57K8gn7knjuTgEDD3k8CN3J 6G+IXVRlMmSlA13tgayOKWe1sD9l2hXRQcZ6Q+kLiss5fyWvk3lqpcTW9d/nLvtyskwH +JixrdoyNYpvVXT29vgZ6aAAmhGqreKuU1PmM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=blVjWYWbhmEb0+GvssBQlrfNu7XoTMJIbKY03B13ZBkdDpqWeVsjmOx11nWqHQJ6rE JN5B5ohAt8vrtWIowNs8hzHtvnWaig+kZBY60b0CAwEnloO69rUYk7lcWM6scnXzXFpj M5e8QwVkQhp+XPwZ/yON4KnmVQf89bhjobtWE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.86.131 with SMTP id w3mr4138774wee.156.1269369312004; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BA8F634.6010707@cisco.com>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997794@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com> <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com> <1e41a3231003221915n45b07a07v3a0ace6a879bb4e9@mail.gmail.com> <4BA8F634.6010707@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:11 -0400
Message-ID: <1e41a3231003231135t7daf61e7i3ce94613d2b2ea8e@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:35:01 -0000

Here's all I think needs to be said (at all, not just section 7), but
I'm a minimalist. :)

----
Section 4.2.2.17 of RFC 1122 states:

            A TCP MAY keep its offered receive window closed
            indefinitely.  As long as the receiving TCP continues to
            send acknowledgments in response to the probe segments, the
            sending TCP MUST allow the connection to stay open.

To clarify, the above statement is not meant to restrict the ABORT
command [RFC793] in any way.  TCP should react to an ABORT in the same
way regardless of the current receive window.
----

  -John



On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 3/22/2010 7:15 PM, John Heffner wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure Section 7 describes automatically aborting connections
>> because they are in the persist state for some period of time.
>
> Since your concern is about the wording of section 7 you can help us
> reword it to remove any doubts that you might have.
>
> Do you want to do that?
>
> - --
> *Mahesh Jethanandani*
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLqPY0AAoJEP9ZPWIqKBmiVssH/2Lp7nO/3c36Ehjbs6hWL6HW
> gq2fGRz/SR6dm0ZR1551LfpCNSuC3Jn53DYjGILSFr2m2kzrh9KSFgjKEzBHssE0
> 8WYih30ufdTv6M9XYGhrlLq5uX5bgDAlEJP4NfmjS4B9BgW5DP95rG3PN+r/jCCb
> mLFIuOjhGyZfCYEniZHnT+TpyPS71msaLzKrXCFnWHY1Y1ybaHz8lHp9oBykTIpv
> AwE90PHSRCWP/RHYmr9d7hAagJ6Xmuruh4KSomn3BsbZHzxpOAQ8SkdHXAuPcv9u
> 4iBIQtXlz5X7EseJcORxHPV6e2OISizjkcIBxZ9qOo3hr/w0HteW50hZMbCyGjg=
> =PAr7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>