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

David Borman <dab@weston.borman.com> Tue, 23 June 2009 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dab@weston.borman.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4762928C145 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eMreccnVkzVX for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frantic.weston.borman.com (frantic-dmz.weston.BORMAN.COM [206.196.54.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536CE28C0F6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.25.44.12] (weston-43.weston.borman.com [206.196.45.43]) by frantic.weston.borman.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n5NEBllm029093; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:11:49 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <3A66908A-BFA3-4504-B5D7-73491CBEB6F5@weston.borman.com>
From: David Borman <dab@weston.borman.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <4A404A83.8030100@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:11:46 -0500
References: <4A12C9C9.9060404@gont.com.ar> <FB06CDDD-8388-448B-8092-151E5533705F@weston.borman.com> <4A30E355.1040704@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4A3FC1C2.7060407@isi.edu> <4A4020D5.30104@gont.com.ar> <4A404A83.8030100@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.laptop.win@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] urgent data draft (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 23 Jun 2009 14:11:42 -0000

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