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

[Ted Faber <[e-mail]>]

No hat.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 02:48:32PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> > Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> >> 1) It is asking to correct/clarify the verbiage of RFC 1122. ie., RFC
> >> 1122 tells the connections MUST persist forever as long as ACK's are
> >> received. Now, clearly as demonstrated in the draft, there needs to be
> >> some ammount of robustness that can be built into the TCP layer, which
> >> can allow the connection to be aborted after some stipulated time. Is
> >> this considered a change in the standards
> > I want to try to bring some focus back on the above point that the draft
> > is trying to make.
> > 
> > If we agree that there is a problem and the solution lies in aborting
> > the connection, however it is done, i.e. by application or by some TCP
> > implementation, then at the minimum we believe that a change is required
> > in the verbiage of RFC 1122. The change is to say that in case of
> > reliable ACK's coming back from the receiver, it is NOT a requirement
> > for the sender to keep the connection open indefinitely.
> > 
> > Can we agree on this?
> 
> RFC1122 says that the connection MUST persist as long as ACKs are
> received. That means that TCP must not abort it. There is no restriction
> that the user (application) must not abort it.

The OS may also abort a TCP connection for arbitary reason, in my reading.


-- 
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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm