Re: Message-id management revisited

> No Mike, this was not your original suggestion:

You're right, what you quote is your list of options. I was referring to the
first comment on 4/28 (and following discussions) when this hub-msg-id thing first appeared in the doc:

• Introduction of sender-msg-id/hub-msg-id is a new, overly complex,
  > detail. If the receiver gives back the same msg-id why does the hub
  > need to add anything to it? If the the msg-id contains some bit of
  > identifying sender info it doesn't need any sort of mapping at all,
  > if the msg-id is a random string then this mapping stack is an
  > implementation detail.
  > I STRONGLY suggest we lay down a msg-id format or Hub respons-
  > ibilities in handling truly opaque id strings,
  >
  

> I want to avoid going backwards on this. We already have Thomas,
Alasdair,
> Luigi and me in favour of 9. Mike, if you can find support among other
> participants for a different one of the existing proposals
> (or some new one) on this topic, we can continue the debate, otherwise I
am
> going to go ahead with 9.

Like I said, my vote was probably moot.

-Mike Received on 2008-06-11Z17:32:27