[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Tue May 30 13:48:24 UTC 2017


On 30 May 2017, at 14:00, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> I noticed that some CSI implementations (and maybe some SM
> implementations as well) add a delayed delivery tag where the from is
> set to their own domain.

Before making spec changes, it’d probably be a good idea to work out why they’re doing this, and what it buys us.

So,
1) Why is it good to shove <delayed/> on CSI?

2) Why is it good to shove <delayed/> on SM resumption? (198 talks about stamping already, but in the context of failed delivery).

My first thought for both is that <delayed/> has some traditional semantics and that putting it on 198/352 would be unhelpful, but I’m open to being wrong.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list