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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 24 June 2009 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 D6B4B3A6F12 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DJ7bJp2sON1n for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189883A6EFF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.193.147.112] (112.sub-75-193-147.myvzw.com [75.193.147.112]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5O25Wgl021552; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A4189EB.9070304@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:05:31 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Borman <dab@weston.borman.com>
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> <3A66908A-BFA3-4504-B5D7-73491CBEB6F5@weston.borman.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A66908A-BFA3-4504-B5D7-73491CBEB6F5@weston.borman.com>
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
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:06:15 -0000

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

Thanks, that does clarify things.

Joe

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkpBiesACgkQE5f5cImnZrtcWQCg08smUBFXIo1TJw1oBzdwI5Ks
BA0AnR0a10gY+RqssAo8GuFZ0axKtEvS
=wTA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----