Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- From: forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Forsyth)
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:47:26 GMT
But in any case setting PSH on a
packet with no data serves no real purpose.
i think that's incorrect: it ensures a push of any data that is already buffered but un-pushed
(ie, the immediately preceding segment had no PSH, and the receiver's implementation buffers
accordingly).
part of the problem with the continued specification of protocols, even 30 years on,
as `formal' english text is that it can appear to be ambiguous when it's just subtly precise.
that's why i had to say `i think' as opposed to QED
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- From: Bakul Shah
- Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- References:
- Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- From: Bakul Shah
- Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- Prev by Date: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- Next by Date: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- Previous by thread: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- Next by thread: Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|