In article ,
don provan wrote:

> Barry Margolin writes:
> > How can this be the "perfect way" when it's actually ambiguous? It can
> > mean either "I'm done sending, but you may continue sending to me" or
> > "let's end the connection." The only way to tell is by whether you
> > respond to further packets with RST.

> OK. We both agree on the protocol, but we disagree about whether this
> solution can be considered "perfect". My observation was that even
> *if* there was a unambiguous FIN (I called it the "I'm not listening
> to you any more" FIN), you'd *still* be stuck with nothing to do but
> respond with RST if your peer had sent a packet *before* you send the
> FIN. Of course, we could invent more stuff to solve *that* problem,
> but I'm not sure how the end result would be better in any significant
> way. I think we're into an area were the solution is in the
> application layer.

I see what you're saying. I suppose the solution to that might be to
ignore packets until the return FIN is received, up to some timeout.
This would be similar to TIME-WAIT state, and serve a similar purpose of
doing the right thing with straggler packets.

Barry Margolin,
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***