Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04103711b2948c149d28@ietf-177-140.mtg.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <v04103600b2941a9d70a7@ietf-177-139.mtg.ietf.org>
References: <v0401170db29413b722fb@[198.67.177.194]>
 <v04103605b2931535ecda@ietf-177-121.mtg.ietf.org>
 <v04011701b292bcd70c8d@[198.67.177.106]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:07:32 -0500
To: <drums@cs.utk.edu>
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persistence in gateways)

On 12/9/98 at 7:26 AM -0500, I wrote:

> I may be able to clarify by parenthesizing the example and labeling 
> it as "for example" instead of "such as". I'll see what I can do.

During the WG session, it was suggested that I simply rewrite the 
Note: in section 3.6.4 to clarify this. Here's my attempt for your 
approval (or, more importantly, your disapproval; if there aren't big 
problems with this, it's going in):

Note: There are many instances when messages are "changed", but those 
changes do not constitute a new instantiation of that message, and 
therefore the message would not get a new message identifier. For 
example, when messages are introduced into the transport system, they 
are often prepended with additional header fields such as trace 
fields (described in section 3.6.7) and resent fields (described in 
section 3.6.6). The addition of such header fields does not change 
the identity of the message and therefore the original "Message-ID:" 
field is retained. In all cases, it is the meaning that the sender of 
the message wishes to convey (i.e., whether this is the same message 
or a different message) that determines whether or not the 
"Message-ID:" field changes, not any particular syntactic difference 
that appears (or does not appear) in the message.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478
Fax: (217)337-1980 or (619)651-1102