[Standards-JIG] Re: Re: proto-JEP: Stream Acking

Nolan Eakins 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.

- Nolan

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/>

-- 
http://www.semanticgap.com/people/sneakin/




More information about the Standards mailing list