Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 26 September 2008 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119353A6A86; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295BE3A68DD for <>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JxAVwagq49Yt for <>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EB03A6A86 for <>; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8QMWO3g021402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:24 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Borman <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hash: SHA1


I'm not sure any of us disagreed with the content. The question is
whether it's important, useful, or necessary (in that order) to address
this, or whether we feel that the existing specs are sufficient.

My conclusion was that applications can always terminate TCP
connections, and so can OS's - e.g., an OS can always just reboot.

This still sounds like an implementation guideline to me. It may be
useful, and may be useful to document, but since it's implementation
focused, I'm not sure I see it as a protocol document.

As a result, I don't think this needs to be a WG document (which is
where I thought things were from Dublin). We talked there about it
potentially being an errata to 1122, and even the problems with that

Finally, it is not clear this is even in scope - it's not a modification
to TCP, nor is it maintenance.


David Borman wrote:
> At Dublin a presentation was made on draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt. 
> Not a lot of people had read the document at the time of the
> presentation, but there didn't seem to be any objections to adopting it
> as a TCPM WG document.
> The authors posted a summary to the mailing list, have responded to all
> issues that were raised, and have a new version of the document ready
> for publication.  We (Wes and I) feel that there is support for adopting
> this as a WG document, but as always, we need to verify this on the
> mailing list.  So, if you have any objections to adopting this as a WG
> document, please speak up now.  Also speak up if you support adopting it
> as a WG document.
> I'll be the first to say I support adopting this as a WG document.  If
> there are no serious objections, the authors can submit their updated
> version next week and Wes and I will add it to our list of WG documents.
>             -David Borman, TCPM WG co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

tcpm mailing list