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

David Borman <> Tue, 19 May 2009 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8B73A6BC3 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxkc3Y2DuW35 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E783A6AEF for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (ala-mail03 []) by (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n4JFR7IU004525; Tue, 19 May 2009 08:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 May 2009 08:27:07 -0700
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 May 2009 08:27:07 -0700
Message-Id: <>
From: David Borman <>
To: Fernando Gont <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
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, 19 May 2009 10:27:05 -0500
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2009 15:27:07.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[45559360:01C9D896]
Subject: Re: [tcpm] urgent data draft (draft-gont-tcpm-urgent-data-01.txt)
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: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:25:37 -0000

I think I forgot to follow up on this, sorry!

So, with my WG co-chair hat on:

The agreement at the San Francisco IETF meeting on the Urgent Pointer  
definition was:

1) Adopt this document as a WG item

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.

3) New applications should be discouraged from using the Urgent Pointer

4) TCP implementations still need to implement the Urgent Pointer for  
existing applications that use it

5) All applications that do make use of the Urgent Pointer must use  
the SO_OOBINLINE socket option to keep all of the data in sequence;  
applications that don't use SO_OOBINLINE and continue to use the old,  
broken BSD implementation that actually removes bytes of data from  
data stream are out of scope for the IETF, since that is not part of  
the TCP protocol.

Please respond with whether you do or do not support adopting this as  
a WG item, even if you were at the meeting, so that we have a record  
on the mailing list.

Now with my WG chair hat off:

I support adopting this as a WG item.

			-David Borman, TCPM WG co-chair

On May 19, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hello, folks,
> I'm planning to work on a revision of the urgent data I-D anytime  
> soon.
> I was wondering if there are any plans for proceeding with this I-D.
> There was some discussion on-list about TCP urgent data, and IIRC Dave
> Borman had suggested (hat off) that this I-D be adopted as a WG item.
> Thoughts? Plans?
> Thanks!
> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: ||
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1