Re: CPIM changes

Peterson, Jon wrote:

[...]

> draft-ietf-impp-im-00 has a concept of a hop-count that is used for loop
> detection. Obviously, when a gateway interworks two IM protocols, loop
> detection is a very difficult quality to achieve, since we cannot guarantee
> that any given mechanism for loop detection (such as a ttl-like decrementing
> integer attribute vs. a Received-header-like way for servers to tell that a
> message has reached them before) will be used by an IM protocol. So, the
> text in the current document says that gateways should if possible gateway
> between mechanisms used for loop detection, but loop detection itself is not
> specified as an attribute for the messaging operation. Is that all right
> with everyone?
> 

[...]

This makes me vaguely uncomfortable. It seems to me that you are saying 
that, while we would like to gateway loop detection information, we 
cannot specify a common semantic. I think we really need to either 
specify semantic content for loop detection, or just assume the 
information will not pass a gateway.




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]