Re: Standards (was Back to Merkle Hash Trees...)

> 
> 
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> 
> > > Yeah, that'd work.  But the other issues surrounding ipv6 have been
> > > hashed out over and over on this list in the past so there's more than
> > > just adapting the binary peers list in the tracker response.  (as I'm
> > > sure you're aware of...)
> > 
> > I know, I know, but I was wondering about the 'The fact is it's not a
> > very well hought out extension that has no means of coping with ipv6' if
> > the compact extension can be modified to deal with IPv6 easily.
> 
> The extension was well thought out in that it saves a lot of bandwidth
> in the context of the current BT protocol.  It's not well thought out in
> that it assumes binary ipv4 addresses and nothing else.  You can fix
> that with any number of ad-hoc extensions, but I guess I'm just saying
> that perhaps its successor might consider the idea of being both
> extensible in the future and a compact binary format.

I actually think that say using multitracker is probably much more significant.

And we seem to be getting off the point a bit.

Its great to try out loads of things, but a standards process is important
and it should look at ways of solving the problems by better methods.



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/