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

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:01:29 -0300

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: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:27:05 -0500

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:07:06 -0700

I agree with all below.

Joe

David Borman wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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;
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 00:04:24 -0300

Hello, David,

Thanks so much for your response! Comments in-line...

> 1) Adopt this document as a WG item

Should I resubmit the I-D as draft-ietf?

Thanks!

Kind regards,