Re: [Nbd] [PATCHv8] Improve documentation for TLS

[Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>]

On 12 Apr 2016, at 07:01, Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:

> hat doesn't mean OPT_ABORT not having a reply is necessarily a good
> idea. Since it's only used by reference nbd-client in just one use case
> at this point, I don't think it's particularly bad to change the
> definition to say that the server SHOULD send a reply (NBD_REP_ACK),
> upon which the server drops the connection.
> 
> The client should probably wait for that too, and not close its socket
> until either it gets a zero read (indicating that the server closed it
> already) or it gets an NBD_REP_ACK from the NBD_OPT_ABORT message.

Yeah. That way would be a safe change (as the worst that can
happen is the client thinks the server has rudely dropped
the connection).

-- 
Alex Bligh