|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Paul Koning wrote:
>>>>> "David" == David Wysochanski <davidw@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Each node which declares the key MUST be prepared to handle the >> response of [RFC3720] compliant nodes that do not understand the >> key ([RFC3720] states that compliant nodes MUST respond with >> X#NodeArchitecture=NotUnderstood). In addition, a node which >> implements this key MUST NOT declare "NotUnderstood" as its value. >> David> Seems fine. Those are just the standard 3720 rules, right? It seems confusing to restate them explicitly, because it creates the impression that this key uses rules that are different in some way from the usual rules. If you do want to state the rules explicitly here, you might include a comment to the effect that "The normal rules for key handling apply, which are ..."
Yes, the more I thought about it, I agree. It just muddies the water to explicity state things about how to handle "NotUnderstood", so I'm going to strike that last sentence.
>> A node which receives the value "NotUnderstood" for this key >> SHOULD discard the value. Regardless of whether the received value >> is discarded, the key MUST be considered to have been declared. >> David> Isn't this last sentence in conflict with the RFC paragraph I David> mention below? Sending "NotUnderstood" in a key value is a David> protocol error, so why would a node receiving it be forced to David> consider the other node having declared it? I agree. The spec says it's a protocol error, the rules for handling protocol errors are defined already -- don't mess with it.
_______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips