Eric Sir, That's what I proposed in Madrid when introducing [TR]ext. It cannot hurt. Forward unknown transactions. The destination will Rerror on crap - it was buggered anyway (as Roy adn HG would say)..
brucee (back in volos, i went the wrong way and got stuck on skiathos) On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have >> significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays. >> that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal. >> >> regardless, interpretation of the ops in a hetergeneous environment >> will be a problem. >> > > Transitive mounts aside, why shouldn't intermediates just forward > unknown messages? End-points which receive messages they don't know > how to deal with just return Error and the client adjusts accordingly. > Endpoint interpretation of operations should be well documented to > prevent silliness and invisible hedgehogs named Dimsdale. > > I suppose this is the same thing you are saying, I just want to have > separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I > suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming > your protocol operation space is large enough.... > > -eric > >
