Fwd: [Standards-JIG] Re: WHACK
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
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,
> 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.
> 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