In message <199906042217.paa22...@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: >> In message <37580f03.88efb...@sitara.net>, "John R. LoVerso" writes: >> >> >But, consider going back to the discusssions leading up to the Host >> >Requirements >> >RFC (1122). The particular problem was that the original timeout value for >> >keepalives was tiny (a few minutes). 1122 dictated the corrections for >> >this. >> >Here are the important points from section 4.2.3.6: >> >> But RFC 1122 pretty much entirely predates the "modern internet user". While >> I fully supported the policy back then, I no longer do. >> >> I still think the right thing is: >> >> default to keepalives. >> set the timeout to a week. > >Then lets go off a write RFCxxxx and get RFC1123 off the books, it's way >over due for an overhaul anyway. >
I think it has been attempted, but gaining rough concensus on a document which declares N implementations "junk" is hard to get. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
