Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Tue, 23 March 2010 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024BF3A68EF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MdjpllTpE7RF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4D63A68CE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADq2p0urR7H+/2dsb2JhbACbKnOkfphuhH0Egx6LMA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,291,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="501059981"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2010 01:30:52 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2N1Uqhw022139; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:30:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:52 -0700
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
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:30:51 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5809284C32@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BA81434.5000808@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
Thread-Index: AcrKJTaG+gLYSZIURbeRKQ/3wQOHlAAAQXKg
References: <Acq++HhKPa/WNfamRcGprqSmMXJeBg==> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997794@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com><4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com> <4BA81434.5000808@isi.edu>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>, "Mahesh Jethanandani (mahesh)" <mahesh@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2010 01:30:52.0498 (UTC) FILETIME=[79D4EB20:01CACA28]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:30:42 -0000

 
> 
> I don't think that's true, however. RFC 1122 never mandates 
> that an endsystem cannot terminate a connection this way.
> 
> I'm ambivalent to this as well, I don't see the need for this 
> doc, but also don't see the harm.


The problem is that all popular running implementations (BSD, Linux
etc.,) have difficulties interpreting the RFC 1122 language in the way
it is supposed to be interpreted which can lead to DOS scenario if
properly not mitigated. That is the whole reason of coming up with this
short draft. All these were discussed in the WG and the rough consensus
of the WG was that it is ok to have this clarified in the form of a
document. If there is anything that needs to be re-worded etc., to make
this clear, we can address that.

Thanks,
-Anantha
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
>