[Council] JEP-0023 redux

[David Waite]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>David Waite wrote:
>
>******
>
>-1, I would like to see it explicitly stated that the TTL is only valid 
>within a hop (e.g. TTL is not the total time to live for routing that 
>goes between servers), and is only processed for delayed messages, such 
>as offline messages.
>
>******
>
>If I understand this paragraph correctly, you have two objections:
>
>1. The TTL does not represent the total time to live for routing of a
>chunk from the sender to the intended recipient, since multiple hops could
>be required. However, this would seem to require that each hop add its own
>TTL attribute in order to implement the functionality laid out in this
>JEP.
>
Yes, it has two problems:
1) it is only processed by servers and subsystems which support this 
particular informational draft, so they will not properly handle the TTL
2) a physical time based TTL is not implemented by this JEP, and would 
not be possible on systems without synchronized time.

Since it is informational, these don't need to be fixed, but I would 
really like to see them documented as issues.

>2. Are you saying that the TTL *should* be processed only for delayed
>messages, that it *must* be processed only for delayed messages, or
>that right now it *is* processed only for delayed messages (i.e., in
>existing implementations)?
>
'Must' is only enforcable for things which support this informational 
draft, so it doesn't buy much. I'm saying that it currently is only 
processed for delayed messages on existing implementations, which is 
what this JEP documents.

-David Waite