On 5/10/19 7:05 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:17 PM Doug Royer <douglasroyer@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasroyer@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Sometimes I find mild bugs in the other endpoints implementation. So I tweak my code to accept their bug when I recognize their implementation. Networking code is full of 'bug compatibility switches'. Hopefully fewer over time.I think this graf does a good job of bringing out the key point which I take Martin to be pushing on. As you say, it would be nice to have fewer bug "bug compatibility switches".One way to achieve that is for the initial implementations to be very strict about rejecting violations of the specification.Then, when new implementations are introduced into the ecosystem, if they do not conform to those aspects of the specification and are forced to implement the protocol correctly. .....
Great idea, until the other end is the most prolific implementation and their bug fix cycle is maybe a year away. So, sometimes you have to accept some noise to get to play.
And who's interpretation of 'strict'? That is where bugs show up. They worked very hard to write those specs, and others worked very hard to understand them and implement them. Then oops a misunderstanding.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
