On 04/14/2016 03:12 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
Sorry for reviving an old thread, but just a heads-up to implementors:
> Improve the documentation as per the mailing list discussion.
> Here's what we decided (broadly).
>
> * One side MAY drop the connection if the other end violates a
> MUST
On 15 Apr 2016, at 07:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>
>> Looks okay to me, but I'd also wait for Wouter's review.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake
>
> LGTM
Applied (including the changes to ESHUTDOWN etc. tense usage
that I said I'd made but had not committed
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:04:57PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 02:12 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > Improve the documentation as per the mailing list discussion.
> > Here's what we decided (broadly).
> >
> > * One side MAY drop the connection if the other end violates a
> > MUST
On 15 Apr 2016, at 00:04, Eric Blake wrote:
> Looks okay to me, but I'd also wait for Wouter's review.
Sure. He gave me commit rights, not maintainer rights :-)
More seriously, this one was (in bits) controversial.
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake
Thanks.
--
On 04/14/2016 02:12 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Improve the documentation as per the mailing list discussion.
> Here's what we decided (broadly).
>
> * One side MAY drop the connection if the other end violates a
> MUST condition.
>
> * The server MUST drop the connection in the 'no way out'
Improve the documentation as per the mailing list discussion.
Here's what we decided (broadly).
* One side MAY drop the connection if the other end violates a
MUST condition.
* The server MUST drop the connection in the 'no way out' situations
during the negotiation phase (error on