On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:22, Andy Smith wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:43:24PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > > On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 15:08, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > > > > Who says they have to keep the 512 byte limit? People don't generally > > > > IRC from 300 baud modems these days. Anyway, if they're designing a new > > > > protocol, shouldn't the protocol be _new_? Perhaps it could be a > > > > thoroughly compact binary protocol, for instance. > > > > > > That's actually on the list, although the conventional one will still > > > work - but ascii text orientation still has it's advantages > > > > Such as wasting large quantities of extremely limited and very expensive > > bandwidth to allow about 5 users per network to use telnet to IRC? > > Hmm, but server<>server links are commonly compressed and/or > encrypted these days, and hopefully SSL connections for clients > should become more common. At that point, surely the only real > overhead is in processing? Well, there is the overhead in building the string matching dictionary (at least for Deflate). This should be fairly minimal, however. I think compressing the connection would be a good compromise. Regards, Alex. -- PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N- o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI D+++ G e h! !r y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
This is a digitally signed message part