SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: FCIP Last Call comment 46 - TCP connection establishment



    Yes, that's fine.  --David
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ralph Weber [mailto:ralphoweber@compuserve.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:31 PM
    > To: IPS Reflector
    > Subject: Re: FCIP Last Call comment 46 - TCP connection establishment
    > 
    > 
    > David,
    > 
    > I can accept adding the following sentence if you can:
    > 
    >   "For example, the FCIP Entity might wait 60 seconds before
    >   trying to re-establish the connection."
    > 
    > Thanks.
    > 
    > .Ralph
    > 
    > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
    > 
    > >
    > > Ok, I agree that specifying a requirement for how this MUST be done
    > > overconstrains the solution space, but I would like to see 
    > an example
    > > provided of how this could be done (without requiring that all
    > > implementers to do it that way) so that an implementer has some idea
    > > of what's needed to get this right.  For example, a 60 second wait
    > > before trying to re-establish the connection might be sufficient.
    > >
    > > --David
    > >
    > > Comment 46 Technical
    > >
    > >    -- Section 9.1.2.1 - Non-Dynamic Creation of New TCP Connections
    > >
    > >       If the TCP connect request is rejected, the FCIP 
    > Entity SHALL act
    > >       to limit unnecessary repetition of attempts to 
    > establish similar
    > >       connections.
    > >
    > >    [T] That's a little vague. How about specifying a minimum time
    > >    period that MUST elapse before retry?
    > >
    > >    Rejected
    > >
    > >    The purpose of the statement is to recommend against denial
    > >    of service to other TCP clients as the result of over jealous
    > >    attempts to retry rejected TCP connect request by FCIP Entities.
    > >
    > >    In the absence of an explanation of how interoperability 
    > is affected,
    > >    it not possible to devise a requirement that is both specific and
    > >    practical for implementations.
    > >
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    > > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    > > +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    > > black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Apr 22 09:18:36 2002
9741 messages in chronological order