*NONE* of it is about tolerating bugs or errors, nor is it about allowing arbitrary behavior for senders.
Sure about that?
From RFC 760:
That is, it should be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but should accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear).
The parenthetical example is explicitly stating that a datagram with a technical error should still be accepted.
Your cut off the part about the meaning being clear.
And technical error doesn’t necessarily mean bug. It could mean specification error.
If you stick with the “meaning is clear” part, it’s safe. It’s when we get into what things might, could, or probably mean that there be dragons.
Joe |
