On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:43:39 PDT, Clay Fiske said:
If -everyone- dropped the session on a bad attribute, it likely wouldn't make it far enough into the wild to cause these problems in the first place.
That works fine for malformed attributes. It blows chunks for legally formed but unknown attributes - how would you ever deploy a new attribute?
By making it optional. Seems to me that's pretty well covered by the Path Attributes section of the RFC. A bad attribute isn't simply unknown, it's malformed. My apologies for not wording that more precisely. I do see the wisdom of fine-grained control of this behavior. I'm just saying, it'd be nice if we could have correct behavior on the basics in the first place. :) -c