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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> Mon, 22 March 2010 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mahesh@cisco.com>
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 EA6073A6861 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 tlEDk0gan9od for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D0A3A6867 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHKcp0urR7H+/2dsb2JhbACbKXOkN5hghH0Egx6GYw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,290,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="310755513"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2010 23:39:15 +0000
Received: from [10.21.107.174] (sjc-vpnasa-942.cisco.com [10.21.107.174]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2MNdFIA015253 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:39:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4BA7FFA2.4020800@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:39:14 -0700
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <Acq++HhKPa/WNfamRcGprqSmMXJeBg==> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997794@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1e41a3231003221441s57d77a53m255fbe8c00cb370@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:39:00 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John,

On 3/22/2010 2:41 PM, John Heffner wrote:
> I read the new version of this draft.  For the record, my opinion
> hasn't changed since the -00 version, which is that publication of
> this draft as an RFC would be harmful.  I don't object to the simple
> clarifying statement that a connection may be aborted while in the
> persist state.  (I'm not sure this requires a new RFC.)  However, this
> draft goes beyond that, implying that connections should be aborted
> *because* they are in persist state.

Where in the draft do we imply that "connections should be aborted
*because* they are in persist state"? We are not implying that
connections SHOULD be aborted because they are in persist state. Instead
we are suggesting that connections should be *allowed* to be aborted in
persist state. Currently RFC 1122 language is ambiguous in this regard
when connections go into indefinite wait in ZWP condition.

> 
> In practical terms, what is the difference between a connection in
> persist state, and one where a receiver acknowledges one byte of data
> every 10 seconds, never advertising a zero window?

The objective of the current draft is to clarify the state of
connections in persist condition. A one byte acknowledgment takes the
connection out of persist condition which is out of the scope of this draft.

> 
>   -John
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC
> AEROSPACE CORP] <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> wrote:
>> The authors have updated draft-ananth-persist, and asked
>> us to poll the TCPM WG to have this particular document
>> adopted with an Informational target.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-02.txt
>>
>> This has been discussed to some extent on the mailing
>> list and at the Dublin meeting.  The authors have
>> responded to comments received thus far and updated the
>> document as it grew from the outcome of prior feedback
>> on the draft-mahesh-persist-timeout document.
>>
>> Please respond if you either:
>>
>> (1) Support making this document a WG document with the
>>    target for Informational.
>>
>> (2) Oppose making this document a WG document.
>>
>> Of course, other comments are also welcome :).
>>
>> It's relatively short, so if people could respond in the
>> next 2 weeks, this would allow us to determine consensus
>> during the week of the IETF meeting.
>>
>> --
>> Wes Eddy
>> MTI Systems
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

- -- 
*Mahesh Jethanandani*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLp/+iAAoJEP9ZPWIqKBmieqAH/2abpfTCnWeBoVp62hYs5AtO
t6BRHBVkGa8Udu6qxzJPfJizSz+IQlmucK89UHZf1gMe+7IKVluAAjjLHrNu/nAW
klL59k5mjvANpjfnuavHn9P07pR4MG4ZTfUuPaLoUriW3udop+stTRt16bRkeN29
1iakjVOlBU58ZmI4zA2or1GxCTDANo9ugifvBtSlYkrD2TZEgrKTSwlQMXzLAX1X
bp1L/RAnnY/7pItEWNZ5F7iqiKLAusOffWxD/qbfP2Mp4EU42rl3u3Fpoiq6kzZj
pOTbuKUCL+pnT8P2X8n/XH3BI65mFWRiJIXgWWMlqnCExsibz+SEq7EvB698u4A=
=45Q9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----