From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:24:35 BST." <8813c14c2411f3c38f30016f85394078@terzarima.net> From: Bakul Shah Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:07:30 -0700 Message-Id: <20080421220730.910685B66@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois Topicbox-Message-UUID: 974743a2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:24:35 BST Charles Forsyth wrote: > > must not buffer data indefinitely, and (2) MUST set the > > PSH bit in the last buffered segment (i.e., when there > > is no more queued data to be sent). > > > > The implication is that the "preceding segment" to a pkt with > > no data *will have* PSH set. > > so does the implementation do that? Do you mean plan9 after the change? The traces I looked at seem to do that. Others certainly seem to do that. > can you prove it in all cases? Not in the formal sense. Not enough free time or incentive. > what will break if we just change it without knowing? > after all, it has been 15 years to come across a botched receiver's implement > ation > of PSH (ie, godaddy's) which is the only reason to change it. > that's what i was pointing out. i could do the work myself, i suppose, but i > haven't got the incentive. I understand your concern about possibly breaking things with this change. It should certainly be tested more thoroughly but since the change brings Plan9 behavior more in line with what *BSD/Linux/Windows do I am not as apprehensive as you are. > >here you have to be compatible with existing > >implementations as far as possible (in order to maximize > >interoperability). > > i suspect arguments like that caused the current situation with HTML, CSS and > Javascript. > computing is needlessly regressing. May be. Somehow this makes me think of E W Dijkstra :-)