[dcc2] Final connection negotiation changes (WAS: Is DCC2 Dead?)

[codemastr]

> Furthermore, I did not mention anything about *how* to supply the
> version token or anything else. I'm not "assuming the definition of a
> token" or any such. I'm just brainstorming.
But my point is, you're suggesting that it should be a token, which in 
itself is a limitation. Who says that DCC version 10.0 is even going to use 
tokens? Who says it is even going to use ASCII characters? Who says it is 
even going to be human readable? All these things are assumptions that will 
need to be made if we create a Version token. That's all I'm trying to say. 
Having it as part of the CTCP name eliminates this problem since we can just 
ignore a CTCP we don't understand, we don't have to begin parsing tokens, 
then realize we have a version we don't support, then back out. Basically, 
it just allows us to detect failure faster.

> instead of the client knowing it's a DCC request that it can't handle and
> responding appropriately, it doesn't know anything at all if you change 
> the
> CTCP name
No, the client just needs to be taught to recognize DCCN rather than just 
DCC2. Pseudocode:
if (substr(ctcp,3) == "DCC" && charAt(3) != '2') send_error("Unsupported DCC 
version");
That right there would handle the error checking. If it is DCC3, DCC4, etc. 
we don't understand it. If it is DCC2, we do understand it. Would doing 
"DCC2 1.0" be bad? Not really, but I just think that's a bit confusing... 
it's version 1.0 of DCC version 2? That seems confusing to me. Isn't just 
saying "DCC2" clear enough that we mean DCC version 2 and "DCC3" clear 
enough that we mean DCC version 3?

> Speaking of which, of all the ideas I've posted here, nobody pretty
> much concluded anything one way or another about them. I'd have to
> look back over the archives but I nothing really sticks in my mind. If
> this kind of snotty reply is all I can expect for direct feedback then
> go ahead and count me out.
If you think this is a "snotty reply" you misinterpreted what I said. I 
didn't attack you nor your idea, nor did I "jump on you" once, I provided an 
analysis of your idea and offered, in my opinion, a better solution; a 
solution that was inspired by your idea, which would mean I thought your 
idea had merit. I just simply think the implementation of your idea can be 
better, and coming up with the best implementation possible is what a group 
designing an RFC is supposed to do. If I thought your idea was stupid, I 
would have said that I think versioning is a bad idea. I didn't say that 
because I do think your idea is valid; I just think a token is a bad idea. 
And, if I just said, "a token is bad," I would hope the next question 
someone would ask is "why?" so I included my reasons why. I was never 
intending to insult/attack you in any way.

Btw, I don't think"nobody concluding anything" is a good thing. Isn't the 
purpose of this group to reach a conclusion? If we aren't going to reach 
conclusions, how do we ever expect to come to an agreement for an RFC?

-- codemastr