SVVS requires a panic? Was: Re: CRASH your TANDEM :

[Chuck Karish]

In article <1991Mar18.174115.26445 at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>>In article <6685 at auspex.auspex.com> guy at auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>>>AT&T has done some bogus things in the SVVS [ ... ] , but requiring that the
>>>system *panic* wasn't one of them, [...]

>I've seen no claims (to date) that Tandem broke conformance by continuing
>to run when it should panic.

An e-mail followup from one of the people I talked to in January
clarified this:  the SVVS expected a panic when the timeout table
overflowed.  This didn't happen under Tandem's implementation.

	Chuck Karish		karish at mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000