> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:tcpm-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:22 AM
> To: tcpm@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-ananth-persist-02
> After reviewing this mailing list thread and the IETF 77
> discussion, David and I think there's support to make this a
> working group document.
> As we see it, the path to take toward publication is:
> 1) authors submit a draft-ietf-tcpm version of the document
Should we re-submit the draft-ietf version taking into incorporating all
the comments we have received so far + new boiler plate etc.,?
> 2) authors need to come to closure with several people who
> disagree with specification of a new socket option; this
> seems to be the main point of contention
Ok, there seems to be some confusion caused with the purpose of socket
option and the references to SO_LINGER etc., I think we need to get
closure on this issue. We (authors) discussed these responses and we
agree that if there is enough guidance that already exists to support
the implementers, then there is no need to invent any new socket option
and just mention the existing tools. OTOH, if currently there are no
ways to make things work reliably, we think that it is not a bad idea to
give some examples in the appendix (after all it is an informational
document and we are not changing ANY standard here, so I personally see
no conflict of interest here). The key is to give a guidance (or at the
least an example) to implementers and we think it is within the scope of
the informational document. That is the reason to mention the socket
option etc., in the first place.
That said, we will work with the folks who have had concerns and see if
we are on the same page w.r.t their thoughts. This is a pending action
from our side.
> 3) issue a WGLC once consensus is determined for the socket
> option issue
Sounds good to me.
tcpm mailing list