Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

+1

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:54:19AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 
> >In this situation, I would prefer changing the default to keep 
> >unprocessed header entries, and deferring the relaying into 
> >modules where I think it really belongs; but I see how this 
> >might be perceived as a big change.
> 
> I think there are scenarios that call for both ignored header blocks to
> be removed and for them to be forwarded. An example of the former is
> some hop-by-hop oriented feature, and an example of the latter is some
> feature that isn't hop-by-hop specific.
> 
> IMO, it is not really a question of whether changing the default is a
> big change or not but rather that it doesn't address both cases. For
> example, having ignored header blocks be preserved would not allow me to
> deploy an optional hop-by-hop compression algorithm.
> 
> A nice thing about the "relay" role proposal is that I get both
> capabilities. This means that I can deploy an optional hop-by-hop
> "compression" header block which is removed if ignored AND a "trace"
> header block which is not removed if ignored.
> 
> Henrik

-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca             http://www.idokorro.com