Re: [tcpm] urgent data draft (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-01.txt)

[David Borman <[e-mail]>]

Yes, the intention is to  change the definition.  It was my note, and  
I thought that's what I said:

> 2) Change the definition of the Urgent Pointer (defined in RFC 1122)  
> to match the definition on page 17 of RFC 793, which is what most  
> implementations use.

So, no ambiguity intended, we change the spec to match the  
implementations.

			-David Borman


On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering about #2. It's worth noting that implementations don't
>>> follow the specs, but I'm getting increasingly concerned about
>>> continuing to publish docs that say "implementations don't follow  
>>> spec"
>>> without actually either saying "and the spec is hereby changed" or  
>>> "and
>>> implementations are noncompliant and should be fixed".
>>
>> Joe, you had agreed with #2 at the meeting we had in Minneapolis.  
>> What
>> changed since then?
>>
>> P.S.: As there is no practical difference between "points to the last
>> byte of urgent data" vs. "points to the byte following the last  
>> byte of
>> urgent data", and since all implementations do the later, it does  
>> make
>> sense to change the specs. You had agreed with this reasoning at  
>> MPLS.
>> -- I'm now puzzled.
>
> I didn't see in Gorry's note anything about saying we were changing  
> the
> specs. As I said, I don't really care whether we change the specs or
> declare the implementation incorrect in general. If we've already  
> agreed
> that this will be a standards track update to 1122, that's fine (I  
> just
> didn't see it mentioned in Gorry's note).
>
> In general, we should always *try* to take a stand when  
> implementations
> differ from the standard. This looks like a case where that's  
> possible,
> so I was just noting that we should do so.
>
> Joe