-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/1/13 6:51 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 1 August 2013 17:24, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Other technologies that support forwarding limit the number of >>> forwards (where the max-forwards is decremented each time the >>> message is forwarded). It seems that we probably need something >>> like this in XEP-0297 so that we avoid infinite loops. >> >> Except that 297 on its own doesn't do automatic forwarding, and >> so doesn't seem to be able to cause an infinite loop. >> >> It's possible that things using 297 would need this. Do you know >> of any scenarios this could happen? > > I guess some kind of auto-forwarder... but not sure of a clear > use-case right now. > > It certainly wouldn't affect any of the protocols that are > currently re-using XEP-0297 as far as I can see.
I'm more worried about future protocols or uses that might induce traffic explosions or infinite loops. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+t0PAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pRhwP/058nTd2QzU470PEWSvkibUP ArIbxkXt9oKl4RowYh2TjC6VPYEBiyy5n+OySJFRgusA3Y6VPan0rGAAQtVU1jis fM/J+uu81KNvXopRq+yOhitVI2jhF9UYeCSaFFEsf37TnSsLeyCqb/4PEz8QFrZT 7Drw8hnhsGys+nYLc3L1US20LasfifO2hBdZMrSpocIgvSqc76/28R7+NvStkqgS 1LjJjpjIiipNP8Vo8e2sV/QF9QZ0puQKMLwxyrQpESxGLRudIGpdlVXJEMwHcFEV 58Tsysskngt2JPpNqFJ8zuDk06MVtBMmMMFJQ84PKvHuomUcrJ4GE1zMY5mc4yqx Ri/yfZ+TTz1pklIIV3pJtrQLd6D4IYT9/Hm/VgAgoYJMSZpuAKKs72a4HI+OgI4X AnpwKV3aLJis5mUCQ37TeYfUaqZnK/ZEzTi90CxyFRRhq/VqBjS9d3vrywn3JaId R+qIfxtQGKlA7OxGn73LUnzOUVRYxu1NrW4DH7Yn69Rke4tuAzORpP1MP2Xuba9F qaMlcdHO5HA7HSw/WsWZzSDB35WYm8At9KnSX13uQhfjdIdHLrWyouj5vF7o7BOa HdOLuQQHb828YuyDKhBWIjjFf/fzbK45GhYmWOOa7MP9QPMcKQT1e4UVdmfXXw4t 0TO9CrQ0BKqgWJ058NLi =O+We -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
