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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04548.html)
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
list.



> 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.

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