Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:58:40PM +0000, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Ted Faber wrote:
> >The mechanism described in 793 and 1122 is a perfectly reasonable
> >definition of a timeout system that an application could use to take
> >action if data's not delivered in a timely fashion.  In a system where
> >those mechanisms are implemented to spec, I don't see why using them
> >would break an application.  And that seems to be what you're saying.
> >
> 
> I agree - my concern was application of a SMALLER value (from the remote 
> end) than currently defined by standard mechanism - and the impact this 
> could have on an unsuspecting application.

Hmmmmm.

On the one hand, I'd say that if an application cares, it should set the
value explicitly.  On the other hand, an application that didn't set a
value for UTO becasue any reasonable value was fine would probably be
unhappy if a 5ms UTO had been negotiated for it. :-)

If I recall correctly, they do have a min/max kind of set up that
encourages systems not to push their defaults down.  I can see a good
argument that UTO negotiation should *never* reduce the default min UTO
of a system to avoid violating POLA.  Is this restriction what you're
arguing for, Gorry?  (If so, Lars/Fernando, do you have
objections/counter-arguments?)

-- 
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