[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DISC] re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...

To: mcp-dev@research.att.com
Subject: [DISC] re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...
From: Dave Kormann <davek@research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199708142250.XAA07013@windrush.elsevier.co.uk>
References: <199708142250.XAA07013@windrush.elsevier.co.uk>
Sender: owner-mcp-dev@research.att.com

 > 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.

given this and erik's, ahem, VOCAL support, i'm all for ditching the
requirement that duplicate keywords be handled at all; the message
should be dropped.  any objections?
				dk

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [DISC] re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...
  - From: Michael Brundage <brundage@ipac.caltech.edu>

References:
- Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...
  - From: Andrew Wilson <a.wilson@elsevier.co.uk>

Prev by Date: cord example
Next by Date: [proposal] rename 'protocol' to 'package'
Prev by thread: Re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...
Next by thread: Re: [DISC] re: Resilience in the face of buggy implementations...
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread