On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 09:38:49AM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote: > That said, I don't particularly like the idea of terminating a > connection behind the application's back, but I don't know that an > application would do anything other than terminate the connection itself > under these conditions. This is just me speculating, though... perhaps > there is a very good use case for keeping the connection up.
I think I mischaracterized my opinion here, so let me try again. I think the stack should make as few decisions as possible. Decision making should be delegated to the application and to supplementary libraries. So, ideally, the stack would not terminate a connection in the case of an ATT timeout; it would put the connection in a "zombie" state and let the application close the connection. I can think of two reasons why the stack my keep its current, less-than-ideal, behavior for the time being (again, all just my opinion): 1. The extra code needed to implement the zombie state may not be worth it (this requires some investigation, though). 2. There are more important things that still need to be implemented. Chris
