[tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6093 (4312)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 24 March 2015 23:10 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6765E1A1A66 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0w7ZkzR-PVLl for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D547E1A1B7C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C274A180092; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: fernando@gont.com.ar, ayourtch@cisco.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com, michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com, nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp, pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150324230855.C274A180092@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:08:55 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/RGrKznLhXqdZJcduKTcAQivfXpM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:02:46 -0700
Cc: yirkajk@vcu.edu, tcpm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6093 (4312)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:10:26 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted 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 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Justin Yirka <yirkajk@vcu.edu> 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. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- 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