RE: CPIM changes

Is there any possibility that a message can cross boundaries using gateways multiple times? If so, is there a possibility that this could happen for ever? If so, then we need loop detection across boundaries.

Regards,
Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: 'Ben Campbell'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: CPIM changes
> 
> 
> It makes me kind of uncomfortable as well - the real issue is 
> whether or not
> the gateway specification should be capable of mandating that any
> CPIM-compliant protocol carries particular attributes with particular
> syntactic properties (like an integer that is decremented on a per-hop
> basis). Presuming we can't levy these sorts of mandates, it 
> might be better
> to abandon the loop-detection idea for CPIM entirely, rather 
> than inserting
> the somewhat spineless text I put in the current draft... but 
> it would be
> nice for gateways to be able to take advantage of mappable 
> loop detection
> mechanisms where they exist.
> 
> I expect we'll have the opportunity to discuss this further 
> in Atlanta.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: 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]
> 
> 
> 



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