[Repost] Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

attached mail follows:

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Is this an issue that we have to deal with as part of the basic protocol
> or is it something that applications have to deal with? I would say the
> latter and I am not sure I can see what we can do about it without
> specific knowledge about the semantics of a header. In other words, I
> would say that this is out of scope.

Well, the current spec says that processed blocks should be removed from
messages. If the block that is removed was referenced by another block
within the same message, and that other block is processed at some later
node, the node will receive a broken message.

So, since we (the basic protocol) specifically ask the receiving end to
remove processed blocks, I would say that we have created an issue that we
have to deal with, or at least make people aware of.

Now, when we explore it, we may decide that we will leave it for phase 2.
(David, does W3C have any plans (yet) for phase 2?)

Jean-Jacques.