I fully agree with Alfred's logic on this. Additionally, this document does update 793 in another sense, as it advises applications not to rely on the urgent mechanism or the OOB facility (which is not mentioned in 793) and also provides a more clear description of what the expected behaviors of implementations are. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ah@xxxxxxxxx [ah@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:42 AM To: rbarnes@xxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-06 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reinforcing the *other* text in RFC 793 as normative *and* the RFC 1122 interpretation of another place in the text as superseded.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 HÎnes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf