IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 02 November 2007 22:26 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 1Io4ye-0005sx-2E; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:26:56 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Io4yc-0005rb-Ht for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:26:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Io4yc-0005rT-8G for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:26:54 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Io4yU-0003pg-T4 for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:26:54 -0400
Received: from [128.9.160.144] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.144]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA2MQS9o023131; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <472BA410.5070509@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:26:24 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: speakeasy <cait@asomi.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
References: <359024.58790.qm@web31711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <FEAB31AF-6D47-456E-8C11-317C21D895E2@asomi.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEAB31AF-6D47-456E-8C11-317C21D895E2@asomi.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1915959761=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


speakeasy wrote:
> 
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:00 AM, MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
> 
>>
>> Clearly there seems to be no consensus on where the problem lies. 
>> I've heard that it's not a transport problem, and that the
>> responsibility for mitigating the problem lies with a) sockets API, b)
>> OS, and
>> c) the application. That's as varied a response as one can get...
>>
> 
> There is no need for TCPM to decide which of the three is the best
> solution, since all
> three solutions can interoperate on the wire.

I agree - the fact that these all vary is less important to TCPM than
the fact that none have anything to do with TCP.

Yes, this is a problem for which a variety of solutions exist, and for
which a coordinated solution would be useful. No, that itself is not
justification for assuming TCP is the place to do this.

Joe


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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status