IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: tcp urgent data

Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu> Wed, 22 September 1993 21:01 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18133; 22 Sep 93 17:01 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18127; 22 Sep 93 17:01 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05923; 22 Sep 93 17:01 EDT
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-13) id <AA18012>; Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:42:20 -0700
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-13) id <AA11374>; Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:42:18 -0700
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:42:18 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199309222042.AA11374@zephyr.isi.edu>
To: ietf-hosts@isi.edu, end2end-interest@isi.edu, kurt@rsvl.unisys.com
Subject: Re: tcp urgent data

  *> I am wondering if there is a standard, approved way to handle tcp
  *> urgent data when an rfc793 compliant host is communicating with an
  *> RFC 1122 compatible host.

Kurt,

Just for the record, it is not 1122 VS. 793.  As noted in 1122, 793
contained DIFFERENT definitions in two different places, and some people
did one, some did the other.  1122 just said which one to believe.

I think Dave Borman has worried this one to death; ask him.

Bob Braden

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email