Re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...

[Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>]

>     To allow the protocol to be resilient in the face of buggy
>     implementations, however, implementations should accept such
>     messages, treating the last ocurrence of a duplicate keyword as the
>     correct one (i.e., in the example above, the text "Hey there..." is
>     treated as the value of the what argument).
> 
> I think that the only correct thing to do when a message arrives and is
> recognised as being invalid is to drop the message - to treat it as an
> error and *NOT* to attempt to best-guess any other form of response.

YEAH.