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

[John Heffner <[e-mail]>]

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> I managed to read all the responses so far on this thread. At the time
> of writing this email, there have been 54 email exchanges (includes the
> authors' responses) around 9 people have responded so far not counting
> the private email exchanges. In order to prevent rat-holing this further
> I would like to step back a little and pose the following questions :-
> 
> A) Do we agree that it is a problem ? [the title of the thread]
> 
>    Most people seem to agree on this.

I would like to step back even further, and work on the definition of 
"it" -- the problem we want to solve.  In my mail on Nov 14 (which did 
not elicit a response), I tried to make the case that the issues framed 
in the draft are in fact only a special case of a more general problem.

I do not believe the indefinite nature of TCP's persist state is 
intrinsically something we need to fix -- in fact, it is clearly an 
important and useful feature of TCP.  It might not be terrible for a TCP 
implementation to provide a switch for an implicit ABORT after a long 
persist timeout.  However, in my opinion this is not the best solution, 
or even a solution at all to the more general problem.

I think if consensus can be reached on what the problem actually *is*, 
it may be more clear how to solve it, where the solution should go, and 
if this is something the IETF should take on.

   -John


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