Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:58:21 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@freebsd.org>, kmacy@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c Message-ID: <47986F4D.6070208@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170801232058n26f59928ue7d36865b1ff1561@mail.gmail.com> References: <200711200656.lAK6u4bc021279@repoman.freebsd.org> <4797B77E.2090605@freebsd.org> <b1fa29170801232058n26f59928ue7d36865b1ff1561@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kip Macy wrote: > Did you talk to the original submitter? Note that FreeBSD's TCP stack > is for use in servers and is not intending as a validating TCP stack. > If you would like it to serve as such you would better served by > tracking down the ANVL tests that FreeBSD fails. Also note that there > is no MUST in the following sentence: > > > "For simplicity and symmetry, we specify that > timestamps always be sent and echoed in both directions." > > So it is clearly open to interpretation. No, it is not. RFC1323 was written in 1992 before RFCs contained the boiler plate definition of MUST, SHOULD, MAY and so on. I, at least as a non-native English speaker, find the sentence perfectly clear and without any doubt. The IETF TCPM working group comes to the same conclusion. And I suppose many native English speakers too. Despite that arguing over whether "always" lacks a "MUST" to make it really always always and never not you cited the wrong part of RFC1323 as reason to completely remove the check. That's what I'm complaining about. Everyone in FreeBSD, including you and me, should at least provide the correct citation and rationale for any code change irrespective of the eventual merit of the change itself which is a separate issue. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47986F4D.6070208>