> On 4. nov. 2015, at 19.11, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: >> HI, >> >> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported >> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into >> IETF RFCs. >> One need at least to relate to the *basic functions* of the POSIX/Berkeley >> socket api standard. >> >> My understanding of the TCP API, for example, is that while RFC793 did >> specify an abstract API for TCP, then >> the true defacto standard for the socket api is the Berkeley socket api >> from .?. around 1990. >> Not saying the different socket api standards don't differ and that there >> is *one* standard to look at. >> But making is be RFC793 rather then what emerged as defacto in the 1990's >> seems a "bit odd" to me. > > There are implementations of TCP that do not use the Berkeley sockets > model. Note, though, that the concept of a socket for communications > itself comes from RFC793, not Unix. > >> Especially since we have RFCs RFC1122 dating back to 1989 already >> clarifying part of RFC793 (namely the PUSH bit) >> And one, much more recent, RFC6093, clarifying the urgent bit. > > When we talk about TCP, we certainly mean more than just RFC793 - we > include all updates to that spec, which include these documents. In some > cases, the updates came from implementation experience; in other cases, > they came from the standards community because of more fundamental concerns.
I believe that was just a misunderstanding: Karen thought that I had only used RFC793 when writing draft-welzl-taps-transports-00, but really I did try to use all relevant RFCs. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
