IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

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

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB1-00069n-J9; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:07 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB0-00062a-Db for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:06 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxB0-00061C-2Y for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:06 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuxAz-0002Sv-KZ for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:05 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 13:32:04 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lALLW5sl014013; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:32:05 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lALLVlvA019401; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:32:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com 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: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE07B@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47448C5A.7070007@psc.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
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)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: John Heffner <jheffner@psc.edu>
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; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |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; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

John:
 
> > 
> > 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
clarification? 

> 
> 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. 

-Anantha


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email