Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt

I had reviewed this document in the earlier versions, just a read again
caught this and I am seeking clarification :

=============
5.  Advice to new applications employing TCP

   As a result of the issues discussed in Section 3.4, new applications
   SHOULD NOT employ the TCP urgent mechanism.  However, TCP
   implementations MUST still include support for the urgent mechanism
   such that existing applications can still use it.
================

Why should we be even making this assertion : "new applications SHOULD
NOT" employ urgent mechanism due to what is said in sec 3.4. The
end-to-end semantics may get broken/altered due to many reasons and not
just due to the middlebox fiddling with the URG flag/ptr. I guess my
point is that why this document take pains in recommending something as
a result of a middlebox behaviour. The best I have seen so far in
documents with similar situation is to just mention that middlebox
behaviour and leave it, do not make any recos based on the middlebox
behaviour. 

Makes sense?

-Anantha

PS:- I think this document is ready for LC and the above comment should
not be construed in any way as to obstructing the document to its
advancement to LC status.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:43 AM
> To: David Borman; Fernando Gont; Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt
> 
> I concur with Michael's suggested edits, plus here are some 
> more comments.  Overall, I think it's in good shape and just 
> about ready to publish.  A minor update should be all that's 
> needed, but I do want to make sure that one of the 
> recommendations is worded correctly (see final comment below).
> 
> Editorial:
> 
> - section 1, paragraph 3:
>   "IT accommodates" -> "it accommodates" ?
> 
> - section 1, paragraph 3:
>   "using urgent the urgent" -> "using the urgent"
> 
> - section 1, paragraph 4:
>   "how current TCP implementations" ->
>   "how some current TCP implementations"
> 
> 
> - section 3.2, paragraph 1:
>   "never reflected into" -> "never was reflected in"
> 
> 
> Semi-Technical:
> 
> - section 2.3 - on the allowed length of urgent data, should this
>   mention that obviously there is a limitation due to the length
>   of a sequence number field?  You can't send a terabyte of urgent
>   data.
> 
> - section 6:
>   I think it's not worded correctly when we say that applications
>   using the sockets API MUST set SO_OOBINLINE.  What we really
>   want to say is more like:
> 
>   "Even though applications SHOULD NOT employ the urgent mechanism,
>    applications that require the use of urgent data MUST set
>    SO_OOBINLINE."
> 
>   Right?  Apps that don't use urgent data shouldn't have to be
>   bothered by the fact that it's broken.
> 
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of 
> >David Borman
> >Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:38 PM
> >To: tcpm@ietf.org WG
> >Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ayourtch@cisco.com; Fernando Gont
> >Subject: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt
> >
> >Note: As recent discussions on this list have indicated, we need 
> >members of this mailing list to be involved.  Please take 
> the time to 
> >read through this document and send a message to the mailing list 
> >either supporting publishing this document, or commenting on 
> why it is 
> >not ready to be published.  This particular document is 
> quite short and 
> >easy to understand.  -David Borman, TCPM co-chair.
> >----------------------------
> >
> >This is to announce the start of the WG Last Call for:
> >
> >Title           : On the implementation of the TCP urgent mechanism
> >Author(s)       : F. Gont and A. Yourtchenko
> >Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt
> >Pages           : 13
> >Date            : November 26, 2009
> >Intended Status : Proposed Standard
> >
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-da
> ta-02.txt
> >
> >It is our understanding that all the feedback has been incorporated 
> >into this latest version and that there are no known 
> outstanding issues 
> >with this document.
> >
> >Please send feedback to the list.
> >
> >The WGLC will end on Friday, February 19, 2010.
> >_______________________________________________
> >tcpm mailing list
> >tcpm@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 