- From: Roger Gonzalez <rg@caffeine.server.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:44:29 -0500
- To: dwm@shell.portal.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>>>> David W Morris writes: >> write window eventually) instead of bitbucketing. Unfortunately, I >> have no idea if this is portable across all TCP implementations, >> since closing only half a socket may be incorrectly implemented in >> some OS's. Dave> Not implemented may be more like the case. I can't find any Dave> reference in WINSOCK for example to closing 1/2 a connection. Consider this a field report to the effect that there is strong evidence that this is the case. Our winsock guru (one of the original implementers of the FTP Software stack) spent 2 solid weeks trying to coerce winsock to cope with the half-closed case. His conclusion was that it is either unimplemented or there is a bug in their implementation. Personally, I'd love to make the spec require a correct TCP implementation, but somehow I don't think this will wash. This implies to me that something -must- be put into the spec about the required server behavior (i.e. must be willing to eat bytes for a while) and suggestions about approaches to defending against denial-of-service attacks. (I.e. eat bytes for at most 5 seconds.) Perhaps we could just require clients that are running on broken platforms to send up a header that mentions what sort of stupid gyrations the server needs to do: X-Braindamage: WinsockReset :-) -Roger Roger Gonzalez NetCentric Corporation rg@server.net 56 Rogers Street home (617) 646-0028 Cambridge, MA 02142 mobile (617) 755-0635 work (617) 868-8600 60 09 3A EE FE 6A 1E CC -pgp- B7 F7 6B 0F 00 1D 01 C7
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 07:48:39 UTC