Subject: Re: More TCP changes for review
To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
Date: 01/27/2005 20:54:59
On Thursday 27 January 2005 20:45, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I don't see any reason not to process urgent pointer updates on
> dupacks. I wonder if a case can be made that an urgent pointer update
> also disqualifies an ack from being used to clock out another packet.
> But it would be odd for a peer to send data and then later decide to
> move the urgent pointer.
Hm, true. Is it even allowed to set an urgent pointer for a sequence number
already sent? If not, it's a non-issue.