On Sun, 05 Oct 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to mark lewis:
MvdV> when the INA flag came into the picture over a decade ago, I MvdV> proposed having protocol flags inherit information from those MvdV> preceding them as an alternative.
i remember... the problem with that is how to indicate a "no capability"...
in the rewrite of the example i gave, you ended up listing the final backup system as the main connection and that is not how that connection's entity was designed... it would be like listing three MXes and having everyone send to the last backup instead of to the main one... yes, the example given was on the ""extreme"" end of the belt but it showed how explicitly listing and ordering of the flags can be used so that one can set their systems they way they want/need them to operate instead of being forced to operate in the way that others tell them to operate... many drop out because of things like this that can't be resolved to suit their needs...
MvdV> That was voted out/shouted down/ignored as well. Instead the MvdV> system continued into one where flag meaning does not depend on MvdV> order.
i never saw that... what i saw was positional usage which was promoted more with the multiple INA flags capabilities...
MvdV> That happens, one can not always get the system to adopt what MvdV> one thinks is the best way.
