[BXXPwg] Do BXXP serial/seqno help with unsequenced transports?

Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:07:24 -0700

> (For those joining us recently, I have been of the opinion that this
> kind of shallow consistency checking is not a worthwhile reason to add
> unnecessary mechanisms to a wire protocol; previous IETF protocols
> have generally not attached a serial number to commands which must be
> delivered in order, nor a sequence number to chunks which must be
> delivered in order.  A number of people disagree with me, including
> Marshall.  I don't know whether consistency-checking alone would have
> been enough of a justification to produce a consensus at the IETF
> meeting, since I wasn't present.)

it's pretty clear that design decisions in beep favor consistency checks at
the expense of runtime efficiency. briefly, there is just too much history
with would-be implementors who field code that isn't properly tested.

postel tells us that we should be conservative in what we generate and
liberal in what we accept. unfortunately, experience shows that, in the real
world, decent code often ends up with only half of the equation.
accordingly, the specification is designed so that the most common
implementation errors get caught by the less than liberal set of consistency