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

Fernando Gont <> Sun, 09 November 2008 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2893A69A2; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CF83A69A2 for <>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:46:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.215
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.576, 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 xMMDoqujFg42 for <>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B8A3A6931 for <>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1DD6B654F; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0300 (ART)
Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA9DkYmo011693; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:46:35 -0200
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:36:10 -0300
To: Stefanos Harhalakis <>,
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 ( []); Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:46:42 -0300 (ART)
Cc:,, David Borman <>, Joe Touch <>
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 10:29 a.m. 09/11/2008, Stefanos Harhalakis wrote:

>What Fernando says (as far as i understand) is that we have a reality here
>where everyone does the X thing (where X may be "wrong"). This is a reality
>and we have to accept it.
>After accepting that this actually happens, we must either (a) persuade
>everyone to change their implementation or (b) update the RFC.
>It seems that (a) isn't possible since it will introduce a backward
>incompatibility and practically invalidate the urgent pointer as a whole.
>Since everyone does the X thing we can easily update the RFC without
>practically changing the actual meaning (or interpretation since everyone
>does it already the other way) of UP.
>RFCs MUST be at sync with the real world. Having RFCs that don't represent
>reality makes RFCs as a whole (or at least TCP related) less valuable and
>less respectable. This will also save time and pain from all current and
>future TCP implementors.


Kind regards,

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

tcpm mailing list