Fwd: [Standards-JIG] Re: WHACK

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Sun Apr 30 14:36:19 UTC 2006

On Sun Apr 30 13:32:16 2006, Matthew Wild wrote:
> All this adds great complexity, compared to easy-to-implement,
> bandwidth-saving whacks.

I don't think it's terribly hard to implement, and I'm really not 
sure why you're saying that whacks (or any ack-every-stanza) 
technique are bandwidth-saving, when they're demonstrably using more 

>  I also think that methods of 'quick reconnection'
> should be covered elsewhere, not by the implementation of acks 
> themselves.
Well, this proposal isn't implementing acks, as such, it's merely 
providing a better overall feature-set in less bandwidth, for a (in 
my opionion) marginal increase in complexity.

> There is also no question in my mind that acks should be hop-hop, 
> not
> end-to-end. Makeshift methods of end-to-end acks exist already, and 
> from my
> experience it doubles the lag aleady present in sending messages. 
> Hop-to-hop
> acks make far more sense.
You seem to have misread, or misunderstood, my comments - hop-by-hop 
reliability is an entirely different thing to end-to-end receipts. 
Comparing them directly is meaningless. Trying to get reliable stanza 
transmission by using end-to-end acks would be a total disaster.

           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

More information about the Standards mailing list