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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 02:51 p.m. 08/11/2008, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> > Again: Do you really expect anybody to change their stacks so that they
>> > become RFC1122-compliant in this respect???
>>
>> I expect that, even if the IETF had a compliance process, the specs are
>> always out of sync with what is deployed, and represent what
>> implementations should try to achieve.
> 
> I understand what you mean, but I believe that there's a difference
> between simply being out of sync (i.e., the specs simply being ahead of
> time), and the specs specifying stuff that the implementations will
> never even try to implement.

> 
> 
> 
>> >> If you want merely to document "what is", that's a fine description
>> for
>> >> a man page, but it doesn't provide utility in a standards body.
>> >
>> > Well, I guess that depends whether you want the specs to be useful for
>> > implementers, or not. I just hope that some of the kernel hackers that
>> > send comments off-list post something in this respect on-list.
>>
>> Implementers should design protocols to specs; they should design
>> applications to specs together with man pages and errata that discuss
>> where the two diverge.
> 
> Man pages? We are talking about what is sent on the wire. We're talking
> about the semantics of the urgent pointer. Why should, e.g. a UNIX man
> page state whether the urgent pointer points to the last byte of urgent
> data vs. the byte following the last byte of urgent data??

The UNIX man page should explain where its implementation differs from
the spec. The BSD source code does, FWIW.

>> IMO, the specs cannot constantly be downgraded to represent what is
>> implemented solely for that reason; downgrading can - and should - occur
>> if we, as a community, decide to change what we *want* the protocol to
>> do.
> 
> 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. In this case, we're talking about
downgrading from 1122 (and some earlier RFCs) to allow the ambiguity
from 793.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkWKpEACgkQE5f5cImnZrvZSwCffyqyx5U/Q26xI7SSL0zn2oHM
iv8AoKvATo3iDP40Wv5xALwmI3JQkVhk
=rwM+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm