Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: OOB [was Re: HTTP and RFC1122 half duplex close]

Expand Messages
  • Steve Alexander
    ... I think the issue probably has more to do with interpreting what the urgent pointer means. If I remember correctly, 793 was ambiguous (it said two
    Message 1 of 107 , Feb 19, 1997
      der Mouse <mouse@...> writes:
      >I don't think there _is_ any "correctly". TCP does not have OOB. What
      >it has is an urgent pointer. Some grad student who must have been
      >either on drugs or on a minimal understanding of TCP thought it would
      >be useful to take the byte the urgent pointer points to and treat it as
      >a byte in an out-of-band channel.

      I think the issue probably has more to do with interpreting what the urgent
      pointer means. If I remember correctly, 793 was ambiguous (it said two
      different things in two different places) and BSD picked the "wrong" one
      (having just re-read it, I probably would have too). If you follow 1122, then
      you disagree with BSD by one byte, which is a real pain. I don't know why the
      authors of 1122 didn't just admit defeat and codify the BSD practice ;->.

      -- Steve
    • Steve Alexander
      ... I think the issue probably has more to do with interpreting what the urgent pointer means. If I remember correctly, 793 was ambiguous (it said two
      Message 107 of 107 , Feb 19, 1997
        der Mouse <mouse@...> writes:
        >I don't think there _is_ any "correctly". TCP does not have OOB. What
        >it has is an urgent pointer. Some grad student who must have been
        >either on drugs or on a minimal understanding of TCP thought it would
        >be useful to take the byte the urgent pointer points to and treat it as
        >a byte in an out-of-band channel.

        I think the issue probably has more to do with interpreting what the urgent
        pointer means. If I remember correctly, 793 was ambiguous (it said two
        different things in two different places) and BSD picked the "wrong" one
        (having just re-read it, I probably would have too). If you follow 1122, then
        you disagree with BSD by one byte, which is a real pain. I don't know why the
        authors of 1122 didn't just admit defeat and codify the BSD practice ;->.

        -- Steve
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.