> > RFC793, where is lists the unused flag bits as "reserved". > > That is pretty clear to me. It just has to say that > > they are reserved, and that is what it does. > > > > Is the definition of "reserved" defined anywhere? In a lot of specs, > "reserved" means MBZ. > > Note, that I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to pick this apart. Reserved values are normally (as in 793) listed as reserved, must be zero. The meaning of that in RFC literature is absolutely clear. That in the absence of you supporting a newer feature using these bits the value must be set to zero. You may not rely on it being zero from another host however. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [OT] Re: hotmail not dealing with ... Gregory Maxwell
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Gregory Maxwell
- RE: hotmail not dealing with ECN David Schwartz
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN David Lang
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Johannes Erdfelt
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Brian May
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Jeremy M. Dolan
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Florian Weimer
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Rogier Wolff
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Alan Cox
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Matti Aarnio
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN David S. Miller
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Lars Marowsky-Bree
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Lars Marowsky-Bree
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Jamie Lokier
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN David S. Miller
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Jamie Lokier
- ECN Simon Kirby