Re: tcp urgent data

minshall@wc.novell.com Tue, 05 October 1993 03:42 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16594; 4 Oct 93 23:42 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16587; 4 Oct 93 23:42 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04925; 4 Oct 93 23:42 EDT
Received: from wc.novell.com (optics.wc.novell.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-13) id <AA00469>; Mon, 4 Oct 1993 20:32:01 -0700
Received: from alpha.Xerox.COM by wc.novell.com (4.1/smi4.1.1.v91190) id AE14800; Mon, 4 Oct 93 20:28:45 PDT
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1993 20:28:45 -0700
Message-Id: <9310050328.AE14800@wc.novell.com>
To: kurt@rsvl.unisys.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: minshall@wc.novell.com
X-Sender: minshall@optics.wc.novell.com (Unverified)
Subject: Re: tcp urgent data
Cc: end2end-interest@isi.edu, ietf-hosts@isi.edu

Kurt,

>Thanks for the info.  I still have some questions though.  Your
>solution works fine for Telnet if you have control over the
>end sending the urgent data.  It also works if you are sending two or
>more bytes of urgent data.  It doesn't seem to work if only one byte
>of urgent data is being sent and Telnet is not being used, or if you
>only have control over the receiving end.

My humble suggestion is to work VERY hard trying to convince application
developers NOT to use the urgent data feature of TCP.

The only application which uses urgent data, besides telnet, is a database
application, and my impression is that it has caused that application a
fair amount of grief over the years.

Greg