Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-00

Fernando Gont <> Sun, 09 November 2008 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664FD3A68F2; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0779F3A68F2 for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.617, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWBR+6yXwRQl for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F8B3A687B for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89A66B6567; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 21:24:33 -0300 (ART)
Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA90OGDs025064; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 22:24:17 -0200
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:18:35 -0300
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
From: Fernando Gont <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 ( []); Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:24:32 -0300 (ART)
Cc:,, David Borman <>,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-00
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: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 09:10 p.m. 08/11/2008, Joe Touch wrote:

> > Joe, why do you imply that simply updating RFC1122 such that it states
> > that the UP points to "the byte following the last byte of urgent data"
> > is a downgrade? Could you please elaborate a little bit on why you think
> > it would be a downgrade?
>I'm trying to have a general discussion about a series of I-Ds that you
>have generated along these lines.

I don't understand what you mean by "along these lines". I don't 
think this document is in line with any other document I have published.

FWIW, I had not even planned to publish this "urgent data" draft. But 
while analyzing some stuff (including packet traces) with Andrew, we 
realized that the specs had nothing to do with what has actually been 

It's a pain for implementers to find out that in many areas the 
specifications have nothing to do with what current impementations do 
(and, in this case, I'd say "with what implementations have always 
done, and still do").

>In this case, we're talking about
>downgrading from 1122 (and some earlier RFCs) to allow the ambiguity
>from 793.

No. We are talking about updating RFC 1122 so that the semantics of 
the UP are officially updated so that the specs (theory) agree with 
implementations (practice). We're not "downgrading" anything.

FWIW, I have already asked you to clarify why you think this is a "downgrade".

Kind regards,

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

tcpm mailing list