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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Sat, 24 November 2007 08:07 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 1Ivq2t-0000d5-7c; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:07:23 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivq2s-0000cv-2P for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:07:22 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivq2r-0000cn-Ny for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:07:21 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivq2r-0002qy-CC for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:07:21 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2007 00:07:20 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAO87KHx017341; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:07:20 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAO87Jb4025117; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:07:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:07:19 -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[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:07:18 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580452BC33@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <027601c82df5$a92b8c20$0601a8c0@pc6>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: Acgt/lQv4OqAaSjCRwygUo/+nL5+aQAcQm8w
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2007 08:07:19.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[09182AA0:01C82E71]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1107; t=1195891640; x=1196755640; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; 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[WasRe=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=z7KYseB6tLiWMQDQFVo2GoHZagF9MCubUf7lPuVkUYM=; b=PO6WM7TTdeR8A2kfOQCQt/0f5cquz5JgOLL5lCFqrt+/Cen2dh+G3M+RlfN/t3Cvk195xrEF jmYFszjPbyHRaGSafLjgdWVjorksCrrC6hcJkYJA5SW8R1+TwWmjyiK9;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
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

 

> 
> No, that is not what the RFC says; as Joe has pointed out, 
> the RFC says what TCP MUST do (and that changing it is a big 
> deal).  Note the title of the RFC - 'Requirements for 
> Internet Hosts - Communication Layers' - and that there is a 
> companion RFC1123, dated now because applications have moved 
> on, but you will not find in the latter prohibitions on 
> applications terminating connections.
> RFC1122 defines what is available for applications to use, 
> what applications can rely on; it does not define what those 
> applications do with that functionality.
> 
> So; is there a problem?  Yes, but it could be regarded as an 
> implementation problem rather than a protocol one, and 
> certainly not worth a change in TCP.
> Worth an RFC? may be.

IMO, the informational RFC which is what is being attempted, should
clarify this. The whole point of my question was to understand whether
terminating a connection stuck in persist state is considered RFC 1122
compliant. It appears from responses so far, it is compliant.

-Anantha


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