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

["Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <[e-mail]>]

<snip>

Snipped most of the thread, since I don't intend to start a debate on
"TCP keepalives" :-)

> 
> > So, the point in short is if I have an socket API, which tells TCP, 
> > abort this connection after a stipulated time in persist state, the 
> > TCP implementation can start a timer (a new timer OR overload an 
> > unused
> > timer) the moment the connection enters persist state, and can tear 
> > down the connection after the timer expiry. This action would be 
> > treated as compliant to 1122 as would the OS running a 
> timer in it's 
> > own context and killing the TCP connection. The key point is that 
> > resulting action is the same no matter which method you chose to 
> > exercise a particular protocol action.
> 
> That is true. However, just like we don't require everyone to 
> implement so_linger, we would not accept a requirement for 
> that timer option to TCP.

I think based on the collective wisdom of the responses so far, that you
don't need to change the standard for solving the problem described in
the draft. ( any solution, for that matter, and not necessarliy the ones
suggested in the draft). In other words, the text specified in the draft
doesn't voilate any TCP standard (RFC 1122) which was my original
question :-). 

-Anantha


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