Subject: Re: More TCP changes for review
To: Greg Troxel <>
From: Charles M. Hannum <>
List: tech-net
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.