Subject: Err messages as implicit acknowledgments

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:39:51 -0400

Bob,
	A minor point.  In an earlier message you asked why PathErr and ResvErr 
messages should be treated as implicit acknowledgments.  My answer was that 
I'd change the text to say "may".  It turns out that should is the 
preferred behavior in order to better handle the case where an ACK is lost.

Lou

PS feel free to forward this to the rsvp list...

----- End Included Message -----