[standards-jig] JEP-0047 (IBB) Updated

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Tue Apr 8 15:46:56 UTC 2003


Bypassing karma isn't the idea (for in-band, you have to be willing to 
deal with it). The problem is that karma implementations arent purely 
rate-limiting, some also impose a penalty for sending too much too fast. 
I'm not limited to (say) 2K/s through the server; if I send 5k in one 
second, I might not be able to send any data for five seconds. There is 
therefore an ideal rate for transfer between sending nothing and the 
maximum burst rate for sustained transfers

The idea is that the sending of the next packet can be time-delayed to 
happen after a certain pause, and that pause can be adjusted based on 
the round-trip-time of the iq response.

-David Waite

Peter Millard wrote:

>Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>  
>
>>However, I still think usage of <iq/>'s for acking can *optionally*
>>provide a somewhat decent and very simple flowrate control. (Because
>>flowrate is one part of TCP we'll eventually have to re-invent for some
>>applications).
>>    
>>
>
>Why do we need flow-rate control for these packets. An answer of "to bypass
>karma" is not valid. (Since we should NOT be defining protocol where one of the
>requirements is that it should be possibly to bypass a psuedo-security measure).
>
>pgm.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>  
>




More information about the Standards mailing list