[dcc2] Other comments

[myndzi]

Oh yes. In my response I forgot all about the main reason I've thought
UDP was useful. DCC2 is useful as a generic mechanism by which to
negotiate a connection. Just because old-style DCC is used for just
chats and sends, doesn't mean DCC2 must be restricted to that. It can
be used to negotiate connections for games, transfers, chats, or
anything else you can think to write into a program or a script. All
you'd have to do is register yourself to handle a specific Application
token, and call DCC2 to work out the details and get you connected.

-myndzi

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:14:11 -0500, Jeremy Iverson <jeremy at algenta.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dcc2 mailing list
> dcc2 at dcc2.org
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2
>