[Standards] Business rules of Last Message Correction

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Jun 11 14:20:36 UTC 2018


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 09:15, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I’m not sure that’s necessary, given that the current protocol was 
> designed to allow exactly this.

Was it? I was reading this whole conversation in the context of:

> support for this SHOULD NOT be assumed without further negotiation.

which I assumed meant a new namespace that is advertised alongside the existing one.

That being said, I'm not against a namespace bump by any means and now that you mention it I'm also not sure that one would be necessary, if we can get away with no new protocol or namespaces I'd be very happy.

—Sam


More information about the Standards mailing list