Vlad,
>
> Since you are soliciting comments from implementors, here are my
> opionions about the change ( I was going to wait until I got to work).
>
> I beleave the the 2292bis-02 definition and TCP implications were
> fine. I was curious about the reasons this was put in the draft.
>
I agree. There were some edge cases regarding receive only applications
and the use of shutdown that needed to be described but the general
mechanism was fine and the fact that it was similar to the SOCK_DGRAM
and SOCK_RAW cases made implementation relatively straight forward.
We have in fact already implemented the -02 behavior.
In my opinion the -02 behavior is preferable to the -03 behavior. If
we need to clarify some edge cases then fine but the -02 behavior was
quite workable and should be restored.
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
