On Sat, 2011-11-19, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 11/19/2011 3:21 PM, Bill McQuillan wrote:
What I am trying to get clear is whether the date-time on the
Received: field is the instant that the delaying state *started* or
the instant that the delaying state *ended*.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic,
You are, but this is a spec and it's kinda expected.
That said, the Received semantics have always been quite vague about
distinctions such as entering into vs. departing from. I think the general
belief is that it's applied when the message "enters into" but I would /never/
want to have any system action be based on that assumption.
Hence the challenge for the current work is whether to stay with that
or attempt to impose much more precise sequence definitions than (I believe)
I'm not a fan of false precision and I /am/ a fan of flexibility -- don't
constrain things unless there's a strong need -- and I don't see the clear and
immediate benefit of our imposing the precision that you are (implicitly?)
I think it's fine that you are asking about this; I'm merely expressing a
preference for coarse-grained precision.
Since the motivation for the "state" sub-field is to help figure
out why gaps in the Received: date-time stamp sequence occured, I
think that knowing for sure whether the named "state" is
responsible for the gap BEFORE the current Received: date-time
stamp or AFTER that date-time stamp is crucial.
In fact, IMHO, without this knowledge, the proposed "state"
sub-field is USELESS.
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>