From: rst@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:10:34 EST
Message-Id: <9503142210.AA03402@volterra>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
In-Reply-To: <199503142159.NAA16886@lazlo.steam.com> (cliffs@steam.com)
Subject: Re: httpd patch B5 updated.
Sender: owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

   From: cliffs@steam.com (Cliff Skolnick)
   Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:59:15 PST

   As for status, yes...some more complicated things are accepted.  Even
   some of the small changes that were in-vote were still being
   discussed (SO_LINGER), while large ones (like the CERT) are
   clearly needed hence accepted.  (Accepted means, yes we will
   do this)

I'm not sure I understand --- the CERT patch is not large (one line);
further, it has been one of the more controversial ones --- I've
certainly seen more objections to it than I've seen to SO_LINGER.

As for SO_LINGER, there is no reason at all for this to be
controversial --- setting SO_LINGER causes *serious* problems on at
least SunOS and HP-UX, and probably other systems as well; also, the
CERN server and apparently NetSite both get along perfectly fine
without it.

   It's all a function of complexity and priority.

Please elaborate.

   Cliff

rst