Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

Noah,

No, you are right, the specification says instead that untargeted header
blocks are implicitely targeted at the ultimate destination, which I think
brings up another issue (cf. my earlier message to Doug David today).

Thanks for pointing this out, and for the gentle explanation.

BTW, I agree that mustUnderstand, path and routing cannot be discussed
independently.

Jean-Jacques.


Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> Jean-Jaques Moreau writes:
>
> >> You probably mean a body block, since untargeted
> >> header blocks cannot be processed unless referenced
> >> by some other targeted block.
>
> Does the specification say that?  As I've said before, my understanding is
> that except in the case of RPC, BODY is carefully defined as a synonym for
> untargeted header, except that BODY is required.  I will say that I find
> this partial symmetry disturbing, but there it is.  I would probably
> prefer to have them either completely symmetric (BODY not required) or to
> really call out why BODY is different, whether anything special is said
> about order of processing wrt/ other untargeted headers, etc.   Anyway, if
> they are the same thing as the current spec. says, then they can be
> processed under the same circumstances.  In particular, I don't see
> anything that prevents processing such a header after the body, and
> certainly nothing that prevents processing it just because it is
> unreferenced.  Did I miss something?.
>
> Indeed, this is one of the reasons I stated on the call yesterday (and I
> understand you missed the call) that I think we need to carefully
> straighten out at least the implications of <body > and untargeted
> <header>, and also I think the whole notion of path and routing, before we
> can really get mustUnderstand right.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Jean-Jacques.

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 05:49:03 UTC