[dcc2] Other comments

[Jeremy Iverson]

> I don't think anyone really ever decided on why UDP 
> was needed though...


If we're talking about allowing UDP at the connection-negotiation
level, I think that would be a good thing. Although it is unreliable,
there are some applications where this doesn't matter (and hence, why
UDP exists). 

I can picture a simple typing indicator as is found in many IM
programs. It's obviously not something you would want on a
channel-wide basis, but a person might choose to turn it on for the
few people they chat with on a regular basis. The client could watch
for incoming UDP packets, and the remote client would send a UDP
packet to give the current typing status. In this case, it's not
really a big deal if a packet or two go missing, and the feature might
not be worth maintaining a TCP connection.

Cheers,

Jeremy

 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org [mailto:dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org] On Behalf
Of codemastr
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:57 AM
To: DCC2 Working Group List
Subject: Re: [dcc2] Other comments

> Ok, maybe I have missed some posts to the list.
> The question is: which application may need an UDP transport ?

> UDP is unreliable... packets may not arrive in order and eventually 
> not
arrive
> at all.

Yeah, this has been mentioned before. People basically suggested
turning DCC into TFTP (using an ACK and an ORD type system). However,
that seems rather stupid to me. Then you're basically turning UDP into
TCP, so why not just use TCP?

I don't think anyone really ever decided on why UDP was needed
though...

-- codemastr


_______________________________________________
dcc2 mailing list
dcc2 at dcc2.org
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2