[Council] JEP - 0023

DJ Adams dj.adams at pobox.com
Mon May 13 13:07:25 CDT 2002

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:02:02AM -0600, David Waite wrote:

> >perhaps not appropriate, as the T is expressed in neutral seconds. This is
> >of course assuming (now, as before) that the time taken between storage events
> >is negligible (otherwise a cross-server TTL would be virtually impossible to 
> >implement?).
> >  
> >
> I think my comments stand; the expiry information is only processed for 
> offline messages within the existing implementation, meaning that a 
> twenty second delivery path will not cause messages with a one second 
> delivery expiry to be tossed; they will be delivered unless they are 

Yes (this is why I raised the point just now). 

> Its easier to just say what this really does; it allows offline messages 
> to time out, or to not be delivered if the recipient is unavailable. It 
> does not affect delivery to available delivery endpoints in current 
> implementations, and really cannot without imposing some manner of time 
> synchronization between components and between server across the internet.

I think that is probably the best course of action (to just state what
this actually does), especially seeing as this is an informational JEP.

I'll remove point 4.2 and put something in its place to this effect.


More information about the Council mailing list