And I'm going to take silence on this one as assent, and add the message to the spec (and test it in the prototype).
Regards Brian On 19/10/2016 21:47, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anima [mailto:anima-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E >> Carpenter >> Sent: 18 October 2016 22:05 >> To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org> >> Subject: [Anima] GRASP issue 57: Add M_INVALID message? >> >> 57: Add M_INVALID message? >> >> MR: What does one do with an invalid msgtype? Options are: >> 1) ignore (drop msg) >> 2) die: drop TCP connection >> 3) reply with ???-M_INVALID or something. >> >> BC: I'm inclined to add M_INVALID as a MAY, or possibly a SHOULD, but with >> a rule that you MUST NOT reply to M_INVALID with M_INVALID. >> And the reason is indeed that we could use this to discover that a peer >> doesn't understand a new (or obsolete) message or option. > > Agree. > > I think the handling of an invalid message is up to the ASA, so what it > actually does depends on the use case. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
