Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU> Thu, 08 November 2007 17:49 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 1IqBVg-0004le-Ev; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:49:44 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IqBVf-0004l7-8g for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:49:43 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqBVe-0004kO-If for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:49:42 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqBVc-0005Ww-7j for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:49:42 -0500
Received: from hut.isi.edu (hut.isi.edu [128.9.168.160]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA8HnUwS028869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from faber@localhost) by hut.isi.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lA8HnUsN022814 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:49:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from faber)
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:49:30 -0800
From: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
Message-ID: <20071108174930.GB1552@hut.isi.edu>
References: <121882.10140.qm@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4730B50A.1030102@isi.edu> <20071106190845.GC5881@elb.elitists.net> <4730BC89.5000909@isi.edu> <20071106192746.GE5881@elb.elitists.net> <20071106193912.GF5881@elb.elitists.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20071106193912.GF5881@elb.elitists.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-url: http://www.isi.edu/~faber
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: faber@hut.isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
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="===============2099180669=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:39:12PM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Ethan Blanton spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > > > It does not seem unreasonable to add a zero-window timeout tunable to
> > > > any given TCP implementation; I don't necessarily think it is a TCP
> > > > standardization issue, however, as there is no wire impact.
> 
> I do stand by this, however.

Let's not lose sight of this point.

Do we need a new standard interface to the TCP stack, or is this an
implementation issue?

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm