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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
...
> After reading the set of what I could find - the only conclusion
> regarding TCP Urgent that I could come to if I was designing an
> application - "Don't use it. At all."

I'm wondering what the current uses are; if they misuse urgent, then
fixing the specs won't help. Maybe we should instead deprecate the
function altogether?

> 1) Given the state of the matters and practical experience, are the OOB
> notifications (which TCP Urgent boils down to?) utilised enough in the
> today's (and tomorrow's) world to have them as part of the "core"
> protocol header as opposed to being an option ?
> 
> (searching suggests this has already been on the table back in '94 as
> one of the "small changes" within the tcpng bounds - but I was not able
> to find any discussions on the topic - I presume they happened offline -
> so would very much appreciate an enlightenment from someone who happened
> to be part of those discussions).
> 
> 2) Would we want to more effectively utilise these 16 bits in the TCP
> header (assuming the URG flag rests at "0"), rather than transmitting
> two zero bytes for 99.99% of the cases ?

If we can't get the community to implement Urgent as per spec, we
probably can't reassign those bits either.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkbBogACgkQE5f5cImnZrvuIQCdFVkPnRwmANRKD3QmY7Y5eJ3p
Y5EAnjklUlDH/zscaHedZF0LTOImVvMt
=53As
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm