And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent
human being serves as final arbiter of standards.
i think some of it eventually will be formalised, much as we do with programming
languages (even Javascript, which i mentioned, at least has a plausible
grammar),
but it
erik quanstrom wrote:
Charles Forsyth wrote:
computing is needlessly regressing.
And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent
human being serves as final arbiter of standards.
good idea. why don't you ask ken?
having looked again at ip/tcp.c i think the code wasn't really intending
to resolve one of the stalled receiver cases i had in mind, although it happens
to do so,
so changing it probably doesn't mess up some original intent.
mind you, one lesson i take from all this is that in retrospect one
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:18:31 BST Charles Forsyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
having said that, i now suspect that sending one byte into a zero-window is
not the problem.
because the one-byte probe can only be done if there is data to send, and i
already knew that a plain connection (dial
Because of this what is likely happening is that on receiving
the PSH bit read() completes and returns to the caller app
with a count = 0 which the app must think indicates EOF!
that behaviour (by the remote) is correct?
what's the definition of `wrong' here?
Meaning that the patch Eric proposed is probably the better way to
deal with ACKs. It wasn't meant to be taken too literally though,
hence the I think.
what's the definition of `better' here?
well, i won't persist in pedantry. i was just
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
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.
to be fair, this is one reason a few programming languages have non-trivial
validation suites,
much of which check probable or historical misunderstandings,
and those suites are usually too small. it takes a fair amount of
back-and-forth through
the natural language text to build a supposedly
Has anybody ever experienced this problem
before with any of there P9 systems? I haven't.
not this particular problem, but years ago i had problems with plan 9 or
perhaps it was inferno
(originally) not implementing the window test correctly
(leading to a RST storm with an incorrect AIX
does anyone know why telnet has trouble with this?
; echo godaddy.com|telnet -nr /net.alt/tcp!whois.godaddy.com!43
connected to /net.alt/tcp!whois.godaddy.com!43 on /net.alt/tcp/12
;
from a similarly-connected linux machine, linux telnet returns a
lengthy answer.
It's not
11 matches
Mail list logo
