> But in any case setting PSH on a > packet with no data serves no real purpose.
i think that's incorrect: it ensures a push of any data that is already buffered but un-pushed (ie, the immediately preceding segment had no PSH, and the receiver's implementation buffers accordingly). part of the problem with the continued specification of protocols, even 30 years on, as `formal' english text is that it can appear to be ambiguous when it's just subtly precise. that's why i had to say `i think' as opposed to QED
