[Standards-JIG] Re: Council decision on "Stanza Acking" proposal
justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Sat Mar 26 01:16:18 UTC 2005
On Friday 25 March 2005 05:02 pm, David Waite wrote:
> But you aren't solving message drops at all with stream-level ACKs,
> and you aren't providing a mechanism for me to be assured that my
> messages made it through. In short, you've not solved the problem you
> set out to solve.
Consider SMTP. It has stream-level acks and optional end-to-end delivery
notifications. Does anyone use those delivery notifications? :)
I'm not saying that e2e acks don't have their place, but stream-level acks
will still give us a great many benefits, some of which are even exclusive
(resolving dead sessions, sending messages to offline recipients).
More information about the Standards