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place in the text as superseded.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 Hönes.
--
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| 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(_at_)TR-Sys(_dot_)de
|
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf