RE: [tcpm] New I-D

MURALI BASHYAM wrote:

> 
> I am not sure what the status of the draft is supposed to be,
> would experimental be a more appropriate status?
> Aside from the status of the draft, the more fundamental
> point is whether we agree that this is a protocol specific
> requirement leading to a problem for which there is a
> protocol specific/aware solution we can put in place.
> 

I have always assumed the following:

	Any application MAY disconnect from any peer when
	it no longer finds maintaining the connection with
	the peer to be of value.

	An application SHOULD disconnect from any peer when
	continued support of that peer will have an adverse
	impact on other connections, especially when the
	peer is acting suspiciously.

Therefore any application MAY and perhaps SHOULD disconnect
from a suspiciously idle peer, especially before maintaining
the idle connection adversely impacts active connections.

Are you suggesting that there is anything in any protocol
requirement that contradicts this?

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