IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 21:42 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 1IuxKv-0008Vg-4r; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:42:21 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxKt-0008VQ-Cv for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:42:19 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxKt-0008VD-1x for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:42:19 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxKs-0002us-Mn for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:42:18 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 13:42:18 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALLgHkw022560; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:42:17 -0800
Received: from [10.21.104.30] (sjc-vpnasa1-30.cisco.com [10.21.104.30]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALLgHb4009536; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:42:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4744A639.2080404@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:42:17 -0800
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CDF71@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CDF71@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=984; t=1195681338; x=1196545338; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mahesh@cisco.com; z=From:=20Mahesh=20Jethanandani=20<mahesh@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=0A=20Re=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=qSYWfAUasVfdT8N/xvIv8ljZ1IViujla+Y0g6eYla8Y=; b=evEwsYTWQwbVoG5TmoGwdmwPskRyMezbt3dTS+cSrWbNFG6sDRu18jourAgTMNFJvL0SbUP0 Qg1mi5TYjcYmks6zP/n6ZTW8AstM1XrlCXjss3XrXV+cJfZ5Ku08L/2Q;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mahesh@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
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

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> 1) It is asking to correct/clarify the verbiage of RFC 1122. ie., RFC
> 1122 tells the connections MUST persist forever as long as ACK's are
> received. Now, clearly as demonstrated in the draft, there needs to be
> some ammount of robustness that can be built into the TCP layer, which
> can allow the connection to be aborted after some stipulated time. Is
> this considered a change in the standards
I want to try to bring some focus back on the above point that the draft 
is trying to make.

If we agree that there is a problem and the solution lies in aborting 
the connection, however it is done, i.e. by application or by some TCP 
implementation, then at the minimum we believe that a change is required 
in the verbiage of RFC 1122. The change is to say that in case of 
reliable ACK's coming back from the receiver, it is NOT a requirement 
for the sender to keep the connection open indefinitely.

Can we agree on this?


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email