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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <> Wed, 21 November 2007 21:32 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB1-00069n-J9; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:07 -0500
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB0-00062a-Db for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:06 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB0-00061C-2Y for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:06 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxAz-0002Sv-KZ for; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 13:32:04 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALLW5sl014013; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:32:05 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALLVlvA019401; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:32:05 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:31:53 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:31:52 -0800
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
Thread-Index: Acgsd/yShbr/j/+2QuqLaDqxRk9aLwACynLA
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
To: John Heffner <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 21:31:53.0872 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF653900:01C82C85]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2083; t=1195680725; x=1196544725; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Summary=20of=20responses=20so=20far=20and=20proposal= 20moving=20forward=20[Was=20Re=3A=09[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem?] |Sender:=20; bh=us1CCYY4dl+T3Sq+Tt6TiNfP6qhh4O1xggWniPuWjL4=; b=WQSCTchX7+eSOSb7ty1zcsrSBFEkGNGG/GCAaISTSmgQSTS/fSH86AbzksYf65b01D/5DwCG dOTOeeyG/57jmiYFcd3+AEiJTCQJQ2B4sIpSwYYDrQUbwCdCefi9Uy+M;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

> > 
> > 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.

Sorry I haven't read that. Will do.

> 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.

Pl see the question I posed to in response to Ted's email. Having an
implicit ABORT or having a socket option is very useful thing. It is the
"basic infrastructure" needed in TCP and TCP API layer (like sockets).
Now, if I follow RFC 1122 language, it seems to preclude me from doing
the above. Doing such a thing is an RFC voliation? Does it need some

> 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.

IMO, one problem we are trying to address ( the main issue) is the RFC
language correction/clarification.

Question : OTOH, I think you are asking for clear "problem statement" ?
Are you saying that the the way it is stated in the document is vague,
does it more clarification? I can read it again and again, but if you
can ask some specfic questions, maybe that would help. Other responses
have been of the nature which I summarised earlier and I don't remember
anyone having issues about the problem statement. 


tcpm mailing list