[Standards-JIG] the word "multicast" is not appropriate

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Jun 1 09:55:42 UTC 2006


> The existence of an address doesn't make it a multicast, it's only
> a handle. IP has handles for multicast trees, but also for broadcasts
> and local hosts. psyc too has handles for multicast trees, like
> psyc://psyced.org/@cnet is the handle for the tree that is spawned
> off psyced.org for all the recipients of cnet news in the psyc network,
> using a tree where a server in australia doesn't have to fetch the news
> from germany if there's already a server in australia who has it.
> and then there is IRC which does multicasting over its network tree,
> so it doesn't have a handle for the tree, as there is only one.
>
> Now we want to introduce handles in XMPP which point to those context lists
> of multiple recipients, that's a start for a better distribution, and
> it is heading the right way, but as long as there is no tree or mesh
> and every server in australia needs to get it from germany, you just can't
> call it multicast. You are trying to use a chic term in an inflationary way.
>   
Looking up the definition of multicast no where did it say that to be 
multicast it has to operate in a tree or mesh format, multicast at its 
simplest is simply the concept of sending one packet/message that then 
ends up getting delivered to multiple end points, it appears that it is 
you that has the meaning of the word multicast mixed up (or rather too 
narrowly defined), rather than us.

Richard





More information about the Standards mailing list