Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!usc-isi.arpa!CERF From: CERF@USC-ISI.ARPA Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Zero window probes Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]12-Nov-85.06:52:07.CERF> Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 06:52:00 EST Article-I.D.: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]12-Nov-85.06:52:07.CERF> Posted: Tue Nov 12 06:52:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 07:59:22 EST References: <851108205728.000456@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 14 Approved: tcp-ip@ucbvax.berkeley.edu John, The philosophical basis for the TCP design, if not stated explicitly, was that the TCP protocol and implmentation could not and should not make too many timeout decisions on behalf of a using process. Only the using process (or perhaps a person) knows how long it is willing to "wait" for some action. Consequently we assigned no value for timing out the condition you describe and instead assumed that the using process would eventually close the connection unilaterally when it wanted to. of course, if you get no ACK back from the probe, you timeout and report this to the using process but you still do not unilaterally close the connection at the TCP level. Vint