On , Tony Li <> wrote: > possible mistake. It's easy to have an inconsistency which > is in the tens or hundreds of bytes. Now what? We could > again check both alternatives, but again, the presence of a > Marker, even in one of the possible locations, is no > guarantee. You could easily skip over an entire message, for > example, and end up ignoring two updates, not just one.
Or waiting for a very long time for that marker to arrive. Suppose the length is 40. You think it's 4000. You will sit there patiently for an eternity waiting for more bytes to arrive so you can read your next marker. I support http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-03 with the understanding that it's the best we can do in a tricky situation to limit the damage. Damage will occur, but this limits it as best we can. -- Jakob Heitz. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
