[dcc2] confusion about UDP and drafts

[myndzi]

That clears some things up :) Since I've only really been posting
about DCC2 itself, I've been reading everything as it applied to that.
So your persistence on the send stuff was getting annoying :P Really
there ought to be a separate list or something.

I'd leave it up to the applications themselves to determine what they
support. For the DCC2 'IRCFile' application, TCP only sounds fine. If
someone wants to come along later and decide on a protocol for UDP
sends they simply can name it differently, or try to get it added into
the existing IRCFile draft.

-myndzi

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:30:16 -0000, codemstr at ptdprolog.net
<codemstr at ptdprolog.net> wrote:
> I just want to say if anyone thought my comments were saying UDP should be
> removed completely, that is not at all what I was saying. Myndzi seems to
> think that someone here suggested UDP be completely removed from connection
> negotiation. If that's the case, I must have missed that. As far as I saw,
> everyone said UDP is nice for some stuff, just not for file sends. I agree,
> UDP could be great for many things, many of which have already been discussed
> (video/voice streaming, "I am typing" notification, and probably many more.)
> 
> Perhaps I should have been more specific. What I said is, as Jeremy seems to
> be implying, the File-Send draft should say "This application requires TCP."
> I was not saying that DCC2 in general should be TCP only, just that each
> application needs to determine precisely which transport protocols are
> supported rather than being forced to support all of them. Just as you were
> saying UDP is useful for voice streaming, TCP would be a hinderance for voice
> streaming. So just as I think it is foolish to require support for UDP for
> filesends, I would find it foolish to support TCP for voice streaming.
> 
> Obviously, trying to work on several drafts can cause some confusion when we
> are trying to discuss all of them at once. Right now, there are at least 4
> seperate things being worked on: connection negotiation, chats, file sends,
> and whiteboard. Perhaps what we should do is put something in the subject
> line to indicate which one the email refers to? Meaning, if the subject
> said "[file-sends] UDP should be removed" it is clear you're not saying UDP
> should be removed from DCC2, merely that it should be removed from the file
> send application.
> 
> -- codemastr
> _______________________________________________
> dcc2 mailing list
> dcc2 at dcc2.org
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2
>