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> Wed, 21 November 2007 20:35 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 1IuwIE-00008W-7o; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:35:30 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuwIC-0008WK-CO for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:35:28 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuwIB-0008Tj-PX for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:35:27 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuwI7-0003G2-AY for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:35:27 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 12:35:23 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALKZMHq025538; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:35:22 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALKZ8bG022916; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:35:22 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); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:35:08 -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: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:35:08 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE030@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47447FE2.4040506@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: AcgscK2GJEtOCyXZQI+ynk/2eQJevAAC5ggw
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 20:35:08.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[01E1DD20:01C82C7E]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2228; t=1195677322; x=1196541322; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; 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=Hx8f7qrQuankUGH0NkBwmPHIDSfCwbsMt0uzKP4Ddv0=; b=qG6Du3Mkm6x+GnsUGt9CfgAGlmaDIQHrkLmlKQjl3UCJxUuh4HxKs8iXPRHIr5l7ZKz+vMoL h7X7/3Rg/zVUzEpTcsr31JoAA6G6CxnlF2mS8OHoXS35yBdpE3xH0vWohQHgoo/RxcOSLxhdDO jisNcyNeIO7n1T2ySV7xpBDio=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
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

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving 
> forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
> 
> I think it would be very useful to highlight the problem and 
> provide information on how to solve it at the application 
> layer in an informational RFC. I'd suggest it'd be useful to 
> include very specific examples, e.g., with socket options, to 
> show a potential mechanism. I also think the doc should 
> include a discussion of making slow progress as related to 
> this issue, and potentially a similar DOS opportunity.

Actually the mention of socket option is not explicit as it stands now
in the draft and there is definetly some scope for re-wording, I think.

> 
> I don't think the doc should change 1122's text; IMO, TCP 
> isn't the one who ought to make this decision, thus TCP ought 
> to hang out as long as the application lets it.

Pl see my response to Ted where I explicitly ask a question and provide
why I think there is "some" element of standarization here, your
responses are welcome.

> 
> I don't think the doc should mention whether the timer should 
> be embedded in TCP as an implementation decision. IMO, that 
> crosses into a TCP mod, and since it isn't absolutely 
> necessary, I don't see a reason to do so there. I do think it 
> would be more useful to give the example of putting this in 
> the kernel as a shared mechanism, with discussion to motivate it.

Hmm.. An informational RFC CAN recommend stuff, confused here??

> 
> Finally, if this is an informational RFC and the solution is 
> soley at the app layer, it ought to be taken to TSVWG, rather 
> than in TCPM. I don't consider this a downgrading, but rather 
> to gain a wider audience for a very real issue.

Well, agree with the rationale but not the reasoning. My reasoning may
be :- "since this real issue applies equally well for SCTP as well AND
also to gain a wider audience, may be it is a good idea to take this to
tsvwg".

-Anantha


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email