Kacheong Poon writes: > Rao Shoaib wrote: > > > I agree, Since sockets semantics should not be tied to TCP behavior I > > wanted to make sure that other protocols that use urgent data and might > > use our code to build their sockets will work. > > > Everyone (I believe...) thinks that the urgent pointer is a mistake > in TCP. So I don't think there will be any protocol which requires > this in future.
Not everyone. I happen to like the urgent pointer in TCP. I think the way it was mapped into "out of band" data in sockets and TLI was a travesty; it's resulted in a lot of confusion among developers who mistakenly think that there are separate 'channels' available for communication. For the intended purpose (such as aborting output in TELNET or rlogin), it works well. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
