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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sat, 08 November 2008 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E011D28C192; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CB628C192 for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:51:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rbYa0USS7Qb for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E5F3A68A2 for <>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA8HpLA6005608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:51:22 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:,, David Borman <>,
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hash: SHA1

Note to the chairs:
This is an important topic for this WG, and I hope we will have time to
discuss it in Minneapolis.

Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 10:47 p.m. 07/11/2008, Joe Touch wrote:
>> > P.S.: What was it called? "rough consensus and.... "?
>> It's not "running code." either.
>> We are not here to write documents that describe only what has been
>> implemented. We need to decide what the target is.
> Again: Do you really expect anybody to change their stacks so that they
> become RFC1122-compliant in this respect???

I expect that, even if the IETF had a compliance process, the specs are
always out of sync with what is deployed, and represent what
implementations should try to achieve.

>> If you want merely to document "what is", that's a fine description for
>> a man page, but it doesn't provide utility in a standards body.
> Well, I guess that depends whether you want the specs to be useful for
> implementers, or not. I just hope that some of the kernel hackers that
> send comments off-list post something in this respect on-list.

Implementers should design protocols to specs; they should design
applications to specs together with man pages and errata that discuss
where the two diverge.

IMO, the specs cannot constantly be downgraded to represent what is
implemented solely for that reason; downgrading can - and should - occur
if we, as a community, decide to change what we *want* the protocol to do.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

tcpm mailing list