Re: [dccp] REMINDER: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on ccid3-drops & ccid-4?

["Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald at jandi.co.nz>]

On 9/20/07, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry at erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> The WG call for interest is still on-going, and will conclude at the end
> of this week. Please write your thoughts.
>
> I see there has been some notes of support for progressing CCID-4 in the
> working group, but no discussion as far as I can see on CCID-3 drops.
> Specifically, this has been put forward as a STD-Track RFC, to modify
> CCID-3 AND also as a requirement for CCID-4. Is this a good idea? Do you
> plan to implement this? Could we live with JUST using this in CCID-4?
> Thoughts?
>
> Gorry
>
Well I've been talking about CCID4 with two implementors during the
last 24 hours and they were mentioning implementing the CCID3 drops
there for it.

I personally, don't see a great need for it for CCID3 unless it were
to replace the existing mechanisms for loss detection rather than
supplement them - it sure would make the code simpler! Having said
that, it would have to be reliable delivery and it would break
existing implementations.

Ian
-- 
Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/
Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz
Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz