Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!CS.UCL.AC.UK!G.Knight
From: G.Knight@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Graham Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: Why does ISODE use SO_KEEPALIVE?
Message-ID: <9011202328.AA28424@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 90 11:10:10 GMT
References: <16089.659086127@xtel.co.uk>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Julian,

	Does this boil own to a problem of what a user is entitled to
expect from COTS? I had a look at the service definition to see what
it said about the TS's responsibility to notify connection failure.
The only thing I could find was:

"The TC release TS primitives are used to release a TC. The release
may be performed:


...
b) by the TS provider to release an established TC; all failures to
maintain a TC are indicated in this way;"

On the face of it, this suggests that failures should be notified even
when the connection is idle. However, as it does not say anything
about how soon after failure a notification should be given, there
remains an area of ambiguity.

						Graham