[Standards-JIG] Re: Re: proto-JEP: Stream Acking
sneakin at semanticgap.com
Sat Oct 30 12:20:21 UTC 2004
Ok. I must have mis-parsed that then. I thought he said acks were bad. For
the implicit feature negotation, it sounded like a good idea to avoid the
<feature/> step since a namespace prefix would have to be defined anyway to
conserve bandwidth. If both ends included it in the <stream> then it would
be safe to ack. If neither or only one did then acks wouldn't be used.
Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> It's not that acks are bad, but that implicit featue negotiation *for
> acks* is bad. He is simply reinforcing his point.
> And yes, implicit feature negotiation is a very bad idea. Just because
> one end supports it doesn't mean the other end does also.
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:13pm, Nolan Eakins wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Implicit feature negotiation seems like a bad idea in general, and in
>>> particular it seems like a bad idea for stanza acks.
>> Implicit feature negotiation maybe be a bad idea, but can I ask why
>> acks are
>> a bad idea?
>> - Nolan
> - LW
> GOT JABBER?? <http://www.jabber.org/>
More information about the Standards