Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ingr!b11!guy!guy From: guy@guy.uucp (Guy Streeter) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: TCP Urgent Data Handling Message-ID: <6052@b11.ingr.com> Date: 29 Sep 89 15:08:27 GMT References: <4982@omepd.UUCP>Sender: usenet@b11.ingr.com Lines: 34 hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > ... >Only the concept of "last urgent byte" makes any sense, and with the >off by one fiasco, even that is ambiguous. I would suggest that you >*not* try to "clarify" urgent, but stick with the 4.3 semantics. > ... RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987 Urgent: Page 17 is wrong. The urgent pointer points to the last octet of urgent data (not to the first octet of non-urgent data). ... ***DRAFT RFC*** TRANSPORT LAYER -- TCP June 16, 1989 4.2.2.4 Urgent Pointer: RFC-793 Section 3.1 The second sentence is in error: the urgent pointer points to the sequence number of the LAST octet (not LAST+1) in a sequence of urgent data. ... BSD 4.3 sets the urgent pointer to the LAST+1 octet in a sequence of urgent data. Whenever anyone else violates a protocol, the response in this newsgroup is always "Fix your software!" Should we propagate Berkeley's error in the interest of compatibility, or should we do it right? Guy Streeter b11!guy!guy@ingr.com ...uunet!ingr!b11!guy!guy