[Standards-JIG] Re: WHACK

Tijl Houtbeckers 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>  
wrote:

> 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 mailing list