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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 23 June 2009 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128B63A6B5C for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-m3inbXLRyh for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0042B3A69BA for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5N3MrTb008163; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:22:43 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:, David Borman <>,
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, 23 Jun 2009 03:24:07 -0000

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.

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