Richard, in your Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data, archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg63667.html, you argue against the "Updates 793" in the subject draft. The issue with RFC 793 and Urgent Pointer is that this STD contains apparently contradictory verbiage wrt this topic. RFCs 1011/1122 had tried to resolve the conflict into one direction (that hasn't been adopted by implementers), and in order to revert that, the subject draft aims at reinforcing the *other* text in RFC 793 as normative *and* the RFC 1122 interpretation of another place in the text as superseded. That's why it indeed makes sense (and IMO is important) for the subject draft to "Update 793". Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@xxxxxxxxx | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf