Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

At 10:25 a.m. 09/12/2005, Ted Faber wrote:

> > But we agreed that the application-specified UTO would take precedence. 
> And
> > that, in the event a system-wide toggle existed, it would default to off.
> >
> > So if you were using UTO, either the application programmer or the system
> > administrator decided to do so.
>
>I think you mean that if you're using UTO negotiation it's because of an
>active decision, which is IMHO, correct.

Exactly.It never "kicks in by default".

>The mechanism described in 793 and 1122 is a perfectly reasonable
>definition of a timeout system that an application could use to take
>action if data's not delivered in a timely fashion.

The point is that if you;re really concerned about data being delivered, 
you should be implementing an application layer timeout mechanism.
If there's no TCP timeout, it does not mean that the data were delivered.

>In a system where
>those mechanisms are implemented to spec, I don't see why using them
>would break an application.

Say I really need to know that the remote app got these data I have just 
sent. So I rely on TCP's timeout. Now the remote app crashed, but the 
remote app didn't. The application design is broken. I'd be assuming taht 
the remote app got the data, when it didn't.

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org

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