Re: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 02 July 2008 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960EC3A69B8; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
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 A6DAD3A69B8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 m+OaXpsPyZt4 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0515F3A67EC for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pool-71-106-103-55.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.103.55]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m62FLFXR017119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <486B9CEB.5040308@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:21:15 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056ADBF7@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056ADBFB@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <1e41a3230807012209j4a564e5bpd1b0b190c74e0ad1@mail.gmail.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056AE1FC@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58056AE1FC@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP persist state issue.
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0571029653=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
> Correct. The whole point of writing this draft is that there is
> confusion w.r.t RFC 1122 verbiage which needed clarification. 
...
> Again, the purpose of this document is not about various scenarios and
> solutions , it is written as an informational draft to clarifiy RFC 1122
> verbiage w.r.t persist state.

As Informational, it would not have that effect on a Standard. If this 
is intended to redefine behavior, it needs to be standards track.

I don't think highlighting a response in this case is needed at all, 
since, as John pointed out, the behavior is already permitted by 793.

Joe

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