View: Browse HTML     Browse Raw Text
From: touch@ISI.EDU
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:11:48 -0800
Cc: touch@ISI.EDU, lsam@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Updated issues list...

FYI, I noticed that the final version of the RFC had changed the wording of the section on persistent connections, notably regarding our work at ISI (reference 27). The original document referenced other work that endorsed the use of persistence. Ours does NOT. Earlier wording made that distinction clear. The current RFC wording lists only the advantages of persistence, none of the disadvantages. Our document specifically addresses these, and the other ways to achieve the advantages without using persistence. I'm not sure in what version of the drafts this change occurred, but I would be very interested in contributing to the understanding and appreciation of the detrimental effects of persistence. Please let me know if there is anything I can do regarding future documents that can acheive this goal. (should I raise this to the group??) Thanks Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Touch - ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM USC / Research Assistant Prof.