RE: Loops (was RE: Preliminary minutes, IMPP at IETF55)

Just to be clear, the attributes of operations in CPIM are abstract - they
are general semantic requirements, not syntactical requirements, for
gatewayable protocols, right? In light of that, I'm not sure why it would
matter whether or not an attribute has a dash in its name... or is there
something I'm misunderstanding? 

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:26 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Loops (was RE: Preliminary minutes, IMPP at IETF55)
> 
> 
> Can it be Max-Forwards (with a dash)?
> 
> Regards,
> Hisham
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:20 PM
> > To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; Adrian Bateman
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Loops (was RE: Preliminary minutes, IMPP at IETF55)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > My plan following the meeting was to introduce in the CPIM 
> spec a new
> > attribute of the message operation ('MaxForwards' is a good 
> > name for it)
> > that contains such a decrementing integer. The semantics 
> > would replace the
> > current section 3.4.2. A new release of the document with 
> > this text will be
> > available before the end of this week.
> > 
> > Jon Peterson
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 8:21 PM
> > > To: Adrian Bateman
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: Loops (was RE: Preliminary minutes, IMPP at IETF55)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I thought consensus out of the meeting was to add them. I 
> > > don't recall 
> > > additional discussion on the list, or a specific proposal.
> > > 
> > > I would propose:
> > > 
> > > Max-Forwards: <count>
> > > 
> > > where count is an integer. It gets decremented on each pass 
> > through a 
> > > gateway.
> > > 
> > > -Jonathan R.
> > > 
> > > Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > > 
> > > > I've been out of the loop (pun not intended, okay, it might have
> > > > been(!)) of the group for a while doing other things but I 
> > > think I'm all
> > > > caught up now. I haven't seen any mention of the loop 
> > > detection issue
> > > > since the minutes were posted. Was there a consensus that 
> > > loop detection
> > > > was required and, if so, are there proposals about how 
> > this will be
> > > > done?
> > > > 
> > > > Adrian.
> > > > 
> > > > On 25 November 2002 14:27, Mark Day wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >>Discussion on Loop Detection:
> > > >>
> > > >>Jonathan Rosenberg - would be catastrophic to have a protocol
> > > >>without it.
> > > >>
> > > >>John Ramsdell - Would need this for NOTIFY as well
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> > > discussions, please]
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
> > > Chief Scientist                             First Floor
> > > dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
> > > [email protected]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> > > http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> > > http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> > > discussions, please]
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> > discussions, please]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 



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