Re: [tcpm] urgent data draft (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-01.txt)

Fernando Gont <> Tue, 23 June 2009 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6118B28C305 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.837
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgRF36BdiJ7r for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445193A696C for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E201C6B6A10; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:51 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5NHxZ3d027862; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:38 -0300
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:40 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 ( []); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:50 -0300 (ART)
Cc:, David Borman <>,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] urgent data draft (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-01.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:59:37 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>> P.S.: As there is no practical difference between "points to the last
>> byte of urgent data" vs. "points to the byte following the last byte of
>> urgent data", and since all implementations do the later, it does make
>> sense to change the specs. You had agreed with this reasoning at MPLS.
>> -- I'm now puzzled.
> I didn't see in Gorry's note anything about saying we were changing the
> specs. 

David Borman had sent a note
clarifying of each of the points draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data was making.
And that of changing the specs to match the implementations was in that

> In general, we should always *try* to take a stand when implementations
> differ from the standard. This looks like a case where that's possible,
> so I was just noting that we should do so.

I'm still puzzled, Joe. In Minneapolis you had stated exactly the
contrary: that in this particular case, considering that the
implementations differ from the specs, and that there is no real
difference the UP pointing to the "last byte of urgent data" vs "the
byte following the last byte of urgent data", it did make sense to
change the specs to match the implementations.

It gets so hard to agree (or even argue) with you when you change your
opinion so frequently, and in such a radical way.

Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1