IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 26 November 2007 05:00 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 1IwW4o-0007Is-6N; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:10 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IwW4n-0007Cs-0V for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:09 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwW4m-0007AB-Kf for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:08 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwW4m-00055G-2Z for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:00:08 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-88-149.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.88.149]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAQ4xHRg021615; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <474A5299.8040301@isi.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:59:05 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
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[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580452BC33@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580452BC33@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0270871271=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>  
> 
>> 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.

1122 allows terminating a connection at any time for the reason that the
application has instructed so. 1122 makes no distinction about the
progress of a connection affecting that control.

Joe


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email