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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 02 April 2010 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 AAF143A68AF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.718, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 bNyQzMgfV5rn for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9B63A6774 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (jack.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.73]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o322jknw023105; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF102C9C72A; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:45:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580938B73C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: The Joker
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma23128-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:45:46 -0400
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20100402024546.AF102C9C72A@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Murali Bashyam <MBashyam@ocarinanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:45:15 -0000

> > I mean, sure, an app may want to not let a connection hang around
> > forever.  But, can't it just ABORT whenever it wants?
> 
> Yes, the application can ABORT the connection whenever it wants. 
> 
> The socket option is suggested for multiple reasons (use cases) :-

Well, that all strikes me as thin.  I mean, I don't actually care what
socket option anyone wants to add, but I agree with John that it doesn't
seem like IETF work to me.  I certainly wouldn't suggest doing it in a
draft that is meant as a simple clarification of previous RFCs.

I am fine with the simple clarification in this draft.  I would leave
off the API gunk.  Just my hit.

allman