On Dec 22, 2004, at 13:16, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Li, Qing wrote: >> It appears the TCP urgent pointer is off by 1. >> In RFC-1122, section 4.2.2.4 on Page 83 describes the >> urgent pointer error in RFC-793. >> The 6.0-CURRENT code has the urgent pointer set >> to (LAST+1). >> Any comments before I sent a PR ? > > No, please do and send me the PR number. It may be well-known here, but this is a long-standing issue. It's been around since 4.2 days. Cf. the discussions in Stevens's UNPv12e (p. 566) and TCP/IP Illustrated, v1 (p 292-296). It may be impolitic to change this :=} Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | "Weaseling out of things is what | separates us from the animals. | Well, except the weasel." | - Homer J Simpson *--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*Received on Wed Dec 22 2004 - 20:28:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:25 UTC