Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:20:50PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern: > There are indeed contexts where an application calling attention to a > problem is very useful. Silently ignoring things that indicate trouble > is usually a mistake (although not always.) I believe that it is always a mistake; it will either bite now or later, or its not a real error and while ignoring it, real errors are missed. It should be addressed, whether in your implementation, the test suite, the spec or the other implementation. And, to Joe's point of resolving the conflicts between the those; that dispute is not for the individual to resolve. The standards body should determine what the correct behavior is. That loop improves the spec, the suite, and interoperability - for everyone's benefit. quality, speed, price; pick two. if you dont pick quality, you will likely be disappointed - whether beer, brakes or bgp. testing is a large contributor to quality. > I would be very unhappy to see us take the lesson from cases where we > were sloppy to be that we should tell everyone to have their > implementations break at the slightest error. That is the suggestion of the draft; i suggest only that a test suite should follow this - be devilishly rude - about the slightest error.