On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 05:58:55PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Bodo Moeller wrote:
>> No, it's exactly the opposite: Instead of keeping a half-closed
>> connection (where the party that initiated the close stays in
>> FIN-WAIT-2 state and the other party stays in CLOSE-WAIT until it
>> decides to close its sending direction too), one party closes both
>> directions. That does not fit into the world-view of RFC 793, but is
>> allowed by RFC 1122. Since these two RFCs are Internet Standards and
>> RFC 1122 uses the term "half-duplex close", calling this term "entirely
>> non-standard" is, well, entirely non-standard :-)
> Aha. I have to admit to being puzzled by the concept, since surely one
> party always closes both directions (unless they do a half-close)? Or is
> the point that there are only two kinds of close: a half-close and a
> half-duplex close?
Exactly. With the standard closing sequence defined in RFC 793, one
party can close its direction of the connection by sending a FIN, and
then the other party can still send as much data as it wants. There
is actually no way to tell the other one to shut up without violating
RFC 793 -- both directions are pretty independent.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
