Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!prisma.UUCP!mo
From: mo@prisma.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SO_KEEPALIVE considered harmful?
Message-ID: <8905301407.AA03344@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 30 May 89 14:07:02 GMT
References: <8905241636.AA04568@braden.isi.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 14

I hear you, Bob, but I,  for one, don't think it reasonable
for every applications protocol developer to have to
reinvent all the common stuff of doing keep-alives at the
applications level.  According to the advertising copy,
TCP provides reliable virtual circuits.  In my book, knowing
that the other end has croaked is part of the definition
of "reliable."  Since this is mechanism that is going to 
have to be reinvented by lots of protocols, it makes sense
to get it right ONCE so people don't have to (1) reinvent 
all the bugs and (2) can just use it for what they really
want to be doing.  The notion that protocols are only
designed by "mavens" is long dead, and rightly so.

	-Mike