Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  TCP Spoofing...
Message-ID: <12652397791.27.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: 9 Jan 91 01:36:51 GMT
References: <9101080645.AA05302@uh.msc.umn.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 14

In religious terms, letting "the customer decide" where ACKs come from
IN THE TCP CONTEXT is tantamount to letting the parishoner decide whether
the "nots" belong in the Commandments.  Unlike Ekstwennifie's "D" bit,
the meaning of the TCP ACK is not defined to be voluntary ... and IS
defined to have end-to-end/process-to-process significance.

Much as I hate to find myself cast in the role of a strict constructionist
--especially while enjoying a pseudosabbatical--I just don't buy the
notion that defining characteristics of protocols are subject to re-
construction by non-designers.  It's not customers vs. gurus that's at
issue, it's denotation vs. solecism.

cheers, map
-------