lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #41494, TCP possibly violates RFC793
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #41494: TCP possibly violates RFC793
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 07 Feb 2014 10:05:33 AM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 2 - Minor |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Postponed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | git head |
Sat 21 Mar 2015 08:30:46 PM UTC, comment #1: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>![]() |
Fri 07 Feb 2014 10:05:33 AM UTC, original submission:
See lwip-devel from Elena Gurevich on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:06:25 +0200:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>![]() |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015-03-21 | goldsimon | Severity | 3 - Normal | ![]() |
2 - Minor |
Status | None | ![]() |
Postponed |
From comparing the spec and the sources, I see this too. However, I don't think it's a simple change: at least with TCP_QUEUE_OOSEQ enabled, when not handling ACKs of ooseq segments, we'd have to send these segments through the ACK handling code once they get inseq or we might risk losing ACK updates (or getting them later as we could).
Since I don't think that this is currently a serious issue, I'm postponing this until someone finds the time to fix it :-)