[tcpm] [Errata Rejected] RFC6093 (4312)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 21 April 2015 19:39 UTC

To: yirkajk@vcu.edu, fernando@gont.com.ar, ayourtch@cisco.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150421193821.3B046180207@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:38:21 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/7mmbvze7_4nBAB-xS-pyHJK1_9E>
Cc: mls.ietf@gmail.com, tcpm@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [tcpm] [Errata Rejected] RFC6093 (4312)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6093,
"On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent Mechanism".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6093&eid=4312

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Justin Yirka <yirkajk@vcu.edu>
Date Reported: 2015-03-24
Rejected by: Martin Stiemerling (IESG)

Section: 3.1

Original Text
-------------
Unfortunately, virtually all TCP implementations process TCP urgent
indications differently. By default, the last byte of "urgent data"
is delivered "out of band" to the application. That is, it is not
delivered as part of the normal data stream [UNPv1]. For example,
the "out-of-band" byte is read by an application when a recv(2)
system call with the MSG_OOB flag set is issued.

Corrected Text
--------------
Unfortunately, virtually all TCP implementations process TCP urgent
indications differently.

For example, by default in particular UNIX implementations, the last
byte of "urgent data" is delivered "out of band" to the application.
That is, it is not delivered as part of the normal data stream [UNPv1].
For example, the "out-of-band" byte is read by an application when a
recv(2) system call with the MSG_OOB flag set is issued.

Notes
-----
The first and latter statements are contradictory, as a default is unlikely to apply when "virtually all" implementations process differently.
This correction to include "in particular UNIX implementations" would be appropriate at many points throughout the document in order to differentiate references to implementation specific features and terminology from references to terminology established in prior RFCs.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Reading the text in a flow isn't giving the contradiction that there is a contradiction.

--------------------------------------
RFC6093 (draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-07)
--------------------------------------
Title : On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent Mechanism
Publication Date : January 2011
Author(s) : F. Gont, A. Yourtchenko
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
Area : Transport
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6093 (4312) RFC Errata System
[tcpm] [Errata Rejected] RFC6093 (4312) RFC Errata System