Return-Path: Received: from newbox.ece.cmu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:46:53 -0400 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489A130F5 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 1B4429B; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4228293; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 13CE289ED; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0477889DB for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id D83E993; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id B138888; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D2F93 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id 7141789FA; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Delivered-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4DA89DB for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 1752AB8; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id DD4A6BC; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thebe.your-site.com (thebe.your-site.com [140.186.45.26]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8125B7 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from asomi.com (64-144-5-25.client.dsl.net [64.144.5.25]) by thebe.your-site.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862D7244FB7; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:46:24 -0500 Subject: Re: StatSN and overlapped commands Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Caitlin Bestler To: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <30792686-C868-11D7-A504-003065D48EE0@asomi.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-28.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_APPLEMAIL version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:30 PM, wrstuden@wasabisystems.com wrote: >> There's an infinite number of possible wrong behaviors that can be >> generated by bugs. I believe this should just be covered by the >> standard *unwritten* rule that, if you mess up the protocol, you may >> not get the answer you were hoping for. > > I'm happy with that too. My main concern, which you agree with, is to > make > sure we don't say that this ITT re-use (w/o status ack) is something > the > target MUST be happy with. Saying, "You get what you get," is fine. The other way to look at it is that if your peer MUST NOT do X then you MAY rely upon them not doing it, but SHOULD NOT do so if failing to catch them would have an adverse effect on anyone else. But you are never under any obligation to prevent your peer from shooting itself in the foot.