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

Gorry Fairhurst <gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 11 June 2009 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 22BF228C1BB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:58:30 -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 1rTu+ufmy-FH for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FFD28C193 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 24-237-wf.tnc2009.rediris.es (ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n5BAwTlU008456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:30 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4A30E355.1040704@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:58:29 +0200
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Borman <dab@weston.borman.com>, tcpm@ietf.org
References: <4A12C9C9.9060404@gont.com.ar> <FB06CDDD-8388-448B-8092-151E5533705F@weston.borman.com>
In-Reply-To: <FB06CDDD-8388-448B-8092-151E5533705F@weston.borman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:58:30 -0000

I supported this in the meeting, and still do.

I think a statement that this not recommended for new applications (3) 
is good, combined with (4).

Best wishes,

Gorry

David Borman wrote:
> I think I forgot to follow up on this, sorry!
>
> So, with my WG co-chair hat on:
>
> The agreement at the San Francisco IETF meeting on the Urgent Pointer 
> definition was:
>
> 1) Adopt this document as a WG item
>
> 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.
>
> 3) New applications should be discouraged from using the Urgent Pointer
>
> 4) TCP implementations still need to implement the Urgent Pointer for 
> existing applications that use it
>
> 5) All applications that do make use of the Urgent Pointer must use 
> the SO_OOBINLINE socket option to keep all of the data in sequence; 
> applications that don't use SO_OOBINLINE and continue to use the old, 
> broken BSD implementation that actually removes bytes of data from 
> data stream are out of scope for the IETF, since that is not part of 
> the TCP protocol.
>
> Please respond with whether you do or do not support adopting this as 
> a WG item, even if you were at the meeting, so that we have a record 
> on the mailing list.
>
>
> Now with my WG chair hat off:
>
> I support adopting this as a WG item.
>
>             -David Borman, TCPM WG co-chair
>
>
>
> On May 19, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
>> Hello, folks,
>>
>> I'm planning to work on a revision of the urgent data I-D anytime soon.
>> I was wondering if there are any plans for proceeding with this I-D.
>>
>> There was some discussion on-list about TCP urgent data, and IIRC Dave
>> Borman had suggested (hat off) that this I-D be adopted as a WG item.
>>
>> Thoughts? Plans?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> -- 
>> Fernando Gont
>> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
>> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>