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

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

[Pilot email, you say? I feel like I'm using a VIC-20 sometimes...]

 Michael Brundage <brundage@ipac.caltech.edu> wrote on 8/18/97 2:29 pm:

>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Dave 
>Kormann wrote:
>>  > 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.

Sounds reasonable to me.

>> 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 
>I agree completely with what 
>Andy wrote on the matter.  
>Lines with 
>duplicate keywords (or 
>otherwise "weird" problems) 
>should be dropped and 
>forgotten by the client 
>(unless of course, it has 
>some mechanism and need 
>for reporting the error to 
>the server)

I'm getting a bad feeling about this.  Are we agreeing:

1) Errors MUST be detected and MUST be dropped.
2) Errors SHOULD be detected and MUST be dropped.
3) Errors SHOULD be detected and SHOULD be dropped.

I'll take door number two.