Subject: TCP RSTs issues discussion

From: Ian Heavens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:36:43 +0100

This will be at 11.15 Wednesday in the hotel bar of the Doubletree
hotel.

Off the topic of this list, but I wonder if SCTP could benefit
from analysis of the experiences of TCP with RSTs, since it
is not widely deployed (e.g. an error code with the SCTP ABORT)

cheers

ian

-- 
Ian Heavens, Spider Software Ltd., http://www.spider.com/
8 John's Place, Leith, Edinburgh EH6 7EL. 
Tel +44 131 475 7015 fax. +44 131 475 7001  [email-masked]

---

From: "David L. Nicol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:08:10 -0500

That would be the doubletree in Edinburgh?

Here's my contribution to the discussion:

I think that the fact that a RST can carry data is a built-in
mechanism for extending TCP.  In my proposal for tcp connections with
transparently migrating ends, the data portion of the RST is where I
found to stick the additional information, since the "reserved bits"
are apparently untouchable, although they would be good too.  (they
are reserved for the army or something, right, in case they need to
nationalize sprintlink all of a sudden for some reason, no?)

So I would be against declaring a STANDARD on what that data can
be (Apple apparently includes the reset reason in ascii english) unless
the standard still leaves some room for extension.

-- 
                          David Nicol 816.235.1187 [email-masked]
                                                    exec /bin/true

---

From: Ian Heavens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:55:08 +0100

> That would be the doubletree in Edinburgh?

Pittsburgh:-).  I inadvertently scheduled it for 11.15 tomorrow when 
the morning IETF sessions continue to 11.30.  So 11.30 is fine to meet.

> nationalize sprintlink all of a sudden for some reason, no?)

Excuse me for not having read your proposal - could you post a reference?
 
> the standard still leaves some room for extension.

I think there must be room for "Vendor Extensions", whatever standardisation
is agreed, so that your application will continue to work.  It's interesting
to see this RST data field being used in this way...

Apple, Solaris and any Mentat TCP based stack do already include the
reason for RST as an ASCII string.  This is valuable in that interoperability
issues have been ironed out already. 

cheers

ian

---

From: Rick Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:11:37 -0700

> issues have been ironed out already.

You can include HP-UX 11.0 and 11i to that list of OSes  whose stacks
can send ASCII reason info in RST segments.

rick jones
-- 
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to email, OR post, but please do NOT do BOTH...
my email address is raj in the cup.hp.com domain...