On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:07:34PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> >I read it der Mouse's way.
> 
> Then mabye you (and Mouse) SHOULD acquire better reading skills. :-/.

I may choose to ignore that SHOULD.

> Note that "SHOULD implement the Nagle algorithm", in this context,
> clearly means "SHOULD do the Nagle algorithm".  If we default Nagle to
> disabled, we are in violation of the SHOULD, as written and as it's
> been interpreted by the TCP community for the last 14-odd years.

1. That's why standards have to be specific. If they meant 'do' they
need to say 'do', rather than 'implement'.

2. It's still only a violation of a SHOULD.

3. Neither Mouse, nor I, have _ever (TMK)_ said NetBSD SHOULD make this
change - only discussed the interpretation of the RFC text.

4. "as written and as it's been interpreted by the TCP community for the
last 14-odd years" would not mean that it should never be revisited, if
someone did wish to consider it.

> An implemntation MUST provide a way to not do Nagle.  Consider a TCP
> implementation which fails the SHOOLD: it doesn't do Nagle by default,
> therefore the `way' (on this TCP implementation) which MUST be
> provided to disable Nagle, is just a no-op.

That's exactly what I wrote.

> If you really want to ask Bob Braden, go ahead. But please don't
> associate the name NetBSD with your request, as that may embarrass
> (some of) the rest of us.

This seems a bit more agressive of a response than I would have expected
to a simple logic discussion message. It seems to be an implicit insult
to my intelligence.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> The only difference I see
between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works! 
						- Leonard Stern