Re: Urgent as Framing Hint?

[Matt Wakeley <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>]

Doug, stop your #$%@! nit picking:

Douglas Otis wrote:

> Perhaps you would take time to explain how the last sentence "The result is
> that there WILL be a TCP segment with a valid TCP pointer (urgent flag set)
> pointing to the FIRST byte of an iSCSI message IN the TCP segment." is not
> mandating change to TCP.

*I* wrote that section of the iSCSI draft.  By the word "WILL" (as you put
it,) I meant "There will EVENTUALLY be...".  And, as was stated many times on
the IPS reflector, it was with a TCP tightly coupled with the iSCSI
application.  There was not intent or desire to change the TCP interface to
other applications.

Now, I threw that proposal out to try and solve the problem that iSCSI wants
to solve.  Instead of helping to solve the problem, you just condemn any idea
that pops up and throw out SCTP as the panacea that solves all problems,
instead of "hmm, maybe this idea would work..."

I am glad I put the urgent pointer proposal out there, because others have
pointed out how there may be problems with using it.  I still believe that
*if* TCP implementations were implemented correctly, it would work to a
degree.  You however, have insisted that it was a "modification to TCP", when
in fact, it was never intended to be.

-Matt Wakeley
Agilent Technologies