Hi, On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 1:14 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Mo, > > You seem to be arguing that the specification doesn't match your mental > model of how it should work. That's not an erratum > > RFC Editor, I believe this should be REJECTed. > > Cheers, > > > > On 30 Jun 2023, at 9:41 am, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > IP TOS is descending order of priority, where the highest value (7) is > the highest priority. > > > > Urgency is ascending order of priority, where the lowest value (0) is > the highest priority. Its definition as an integer between 0 and 7 > inclusive doesn’t alter the meaning of descending / ascending. So I don’t > see how the current text can be considered correct. > > > To add, Sorry, I'm not seeing it where that definition works.. The urgency range is presented as 0 through 7 and the natural order to progress through that range is from start to finish. If the priority of the associated response to the urgency decreases as you go through the range, it is not ascending. I don't see this as valid erratum on the grounds that this presentation language has consensus and has been implemented and interoped by several independent implementations. Cheers, Lucas
Received on Friday, 30 June 2023 00:20:12 UTC