[Standards-JIG] Re: What happened to the ACK proposal?
ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Tue Aug 16 18:06:07 UTC 2005
> On the "internet" you can't assume that the TCP
> connection you make is a straight end to end TCP connection.
Hmm, sorry I didn't know that. (I was probably not paying attention to
the previous thread.) This should be mentioned in JEP-ACK.
Are the devices that "maintain a good flow and guarantee in-order
delivery" at the expense of breaking TCP typically found on *5222*
connections? Do XMPP senders receive ACKs for most of their TCP packets
that are never delivered? Can you point me towards any analysis of the
Assuming this is true, then the case for XMPP ACK is very compelling
(the problem won't go away even if people upgrade their TCP stacks). Why
didn't this point carry the argument last time?
> So what's harder to change? The council's opinion
> of a JEP? the XMPP RFC? Or the entire internet?
Assuming the network problem is as big as you suggest, then this will
probably end up in RFC 3920bis, but in the mean time, we can pave the
way with JEP-ACK.
More information about the Standards