Subject: Re: W-7 CAP Auto-logout Timer

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:45:39 -0400

John replied with:
>I'm not sure it cares.  If you power down a router, the connection does
>not get closed (it's maintained by the endpoints), unless you try to
>send data over the connection (in which case your TCP stack will get a
>Network Unreachable packet, and drop the connection).  So, if you're
>idle, and the connection gets dropped, it's because of something at one
>of the endpoints.  Either the CS was shut down (or crashed) or the CUA
>hit a timeout.  In either case, the appropriate reaction is to reopen
>the connection the next time you need to talk to the CS.

Reread my first posting.  You missed the concept below your cited snippet 
that discussed the logic/reason for this and a possible methodology.

<NUTSHELL>
The CS wouldnt just drop the connection w/o first sending some form of msg 
to the CUA saying "See ya later" ("You've been idle too long. Bye.", 
"Shutting down for now.  See ya", etc).  This makes the CUAs job simpler 
in that it knows its being kicked off rather than having to guess as to 
what happened.
</NUTSHELL>

I need more cycles in the day to read the latest published draft but this 
notification should be easily buildable on any CS->CUA unsolicited msg 
mechanism.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:01:23 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> The CS wouldnt just drop the connection w/o first sending some form of
> msg to the CUA

Even if your CS never crashes, you can't be sure of this.  What if I
suspect someone's abusing a security hole in my CS? I'm not going to
take the time to say goodbye to each user cleanly; I'm just going to
kill the process.

I agree that a notification with some human-readable text (maybe written
by the admin) may be useful; but the CUA will always need to be able to
deal with unclean closes.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/