>> rfc 742 p. 42 says
>>
>> [...] If the the user signals a push function then the
>> data must be sent even if it is a small segment.
>>
>> by "illegal" i mean goes contrary to an rfc "must." perhaps
>> i'm missing something.
>
> i don't see how what was sent is contrary to that requirement.
>
>>sensible as setting PSH on a pure ACK.
>
> i don't understand this reference to a `pure' ACK. it's an ACK! in TCP/IP
> every
> packet after SYN must have an ACK (or that really is -- explicitly --
> illegal).
> the ACK and PSH have nothing to do with each other.
> in fact, the receiver isn't handling the PSH oddly because it's associated
> with an ACK, but because it misinterpreted the standard, or the standard
> isn't clear.
By pure I assume he meant an ACK with no data, which is what I
also meant by "plain ACK". But I agree with Charles here. After
going back over the related sections of the RFC I don't see how
this behavior violates anything in the standard. It's just not
very common, and obviously not interpreted very well by this
particular endpoint. Has anybody ever experienced this problem
before with any of there P9 systems? I haven't.
