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

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:50 -0800

MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
...
> The issue here is that TCP cannot inform the application and have the 
> application initiate the abort, because it is  not necessary that the application has that connection state 
> around anymore, it could have been destroyed already, i've alluded to  this issue before. 

And I have already shown how to address it - SO_LINGER.

In the case of a Unix close() call, this can be used to cause close() to
 block until either the graceful shutdown completes (i.e., all data is
sent and ack'd, and the other end closes) OR a timer expires.

SO_LINGER already supports a timer for this purpose.

Can we please stop trying to add to TCP that which ***ALREADY*** exists
in the implementation?

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm