In message <4C28A787.2040706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > A lot of the application code I've seen could be described as > "second-guess one or more TCP timers, add pepper and salt, serve as > desired". The second half of that is obviously not amenable to > standardisation. The TCP stack cannot take any action. But the first > part seems more... reasonable. I think the TCP stack can inform the > application of its state, better than it does via the APIs I know. > > Of course it's a local matter, not really IETFish. Where is the boundary > these days? Didn't some RFC extend the Berkeley sockets API for v6? Actually it was a pair of RFCs (manditory and optional parts of the (singular) API). The Open Group then botched the incorporation of them into POSIX by only adding the manditory parts when they were ment to be added as a pair. Linux developers then componded Open Group's error by hiding the optional parts of the API behind #ifdef's. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf