[Standards-JIG] Re: WHACK
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Mon May 1 05:02:36 UTC 2006
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:25:18 +0200, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk>
> On 30 Apr 2006, at 13:32, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> All this adds great complexity, compared to easy-to-implement,
>> bandwidth-saving whacks. I also think that methods of 'quick
>> reconnection' should be covered elsewhere, not by the implementation of
>> acks themselves.
> Unfortunately, as we've previously discussed, whacks aren't viable.
> JEP-ACK is, however, semantically identical, very little bandwidth, and
> feasible. Low complexity, low bandwidth, non-compatibility breaking.
So what do PSA (JEP editor and responsible for stirring up the thread) and
Justin (who wrote JEP-ACK) think? Should this be resubmitted? Does Justin
still want to author it or should someone else take over?
More information about the Standards