From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <229795f1942c0e1a9fdf0d5cf32f3853@terzarima.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: Charles Forsyth Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:56:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois Topicbox-Message-UUID: 916c6d72-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > what's the definition of `wrong' here? > Meaning that the patch Eric proposed is probably the better way to > deal with ACKs. It wasn't meant to be taken too literally though, > hence the "I think". what's the definition of `better' here? well, i won't persist in pedantry. i was just curious about the rationale for the adjectives. i'd say it isn't really to do with ACKs: the protocol definition rightly has ACK and PSH interpreted by different sides at the destination: input for ACK and output for PSH. in fact, the Plan 9 behaviour is rational for a sluggish or zero window: the receiving side might delay delivering data to the application until a PSH, but won't open the window if that queue is full. (thus rfc1122 mutters about deadlock in the absence of PSH, in 4.2.2.2.)