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

-----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-----