>
> > >As a general point, about the need for parsers to be forgiving - there is
> an
> > >argument that 'over-aggressive' parsers are useful because they prevent
> > >unpredictable and potentially serious operational problems
> > >from arising in a complex interworking environment.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree. Can you give an example of the concern you
> > beleive you're addressing?
> >
>
> Let's say a forgiving parser in system A passes some crud on to another
> system B. A has no knowledge of how B will react to anything that is
> outside the spec. Nor does A know, for example, whether or not the systems
> are in a safety-critical situation. The only reasonable assumption A should
> make about B is that B is responsible for performing correctly within the
> spec. i.e. that given correct input, B should behave correctly, and that
> given incorrect input, B will behave unpredictably.
>
> Barry Desborough, VegaStream Ltd.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Had A not been in the loop and B had received this request directly, how would it act?
In general, there is absolutely no reason to assume that external systems will
assume any responsibility for YOUR reliability. If I were building a "safety-critical"
application with SIP, I would plan on receiving everything from Shakespeare's sonnets
to
H.323 to SIP. IMHO, the best plan of action is to bend over backwards and try to do
the "right thing" when processing a message even if that message has been hand crafted
over a telnet session :)
Sean Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ericsson Inc.
