Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: ..."layering violations"
Message-ID: <12348462737.37.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 10:31:44 EST
Article-I.D.: A.12348462737.37.PADLIPSKY
Posted: Fri Nov  6 10:31:44 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 05:46:14 EST
References: <8711030915.AA00844@gumby.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19

Although you probably make a valuable distinction (given confirmation
that X.25 actually does have a "Host Down" return--I remember something
like Virtual Circuit Failure, or the like, myself), I was not, of course,
talking about X.25 explicitly.  (Nor was I talking about daemons explicitly.)
Always delighted to learn of still another X.25 faux pas, though.
(I'd confirm the Host Down question myself, but I don't have an X.25
spec handy, even though I acknowdlege that it's a seminal fascicle.)

Just so the principle doesn't get lost in the worrying over the example,
let me rephrase: Just as there's no need to close connections before
their time, there's no need to keep them open beyond their time.  Good
judgment is expected to be applied to the issue of what time it is
in the life of given connections in given contexts.  OK?

cheers, map

P.S.  Maybe it's a quibble, but wouldn't X.25 call it DTE Down, anyway?
(Or is it DCE?  Well, DxE, at least.)
-------