Re: Channel response serialization

On Friday, Aug 2, 2002, at 13:57 US/Pacific, Greg Weber wrote:
>
> I was thinking of performance/traffic.  Lack of support for
> one-way messages despite reliable transport seems to be often
> cited in support of work similar to beep, e.g.
>   draft-hessing-p2p-messaging-00.txt.

Here's my hipshot response to concerns about network overhead in BEEP: 
we want tuning profiles for compression protocols.  I can imagine a 
compression protocol that squeezes a lot of bytes out of the BEEP 
header and trailer, as well as shaving some off the encodings of the 
management profile messages.

Since I don't have a deep compelling need to see such protocols 
deployed, I'm not agitating loudly to contribute to their drafting.  
You want to do that?  Go for it.  I will wait for you here.


--james