Changes
Ximin Luo <infinity0@pwned.gg> writes:
''> the issue is *not* merely a matter of sticking a recovery system on top of mpCAT, as you argue below. If you are not aware of *how recovery systems work*, then you may end up with a mpCAT that does things that it *impossible* to add such a system onto it.''
In my opinion mpCAT should be like SSL and IPSEC, the messaging transport control
''> for the end-to-end clients to be able to recover from message dropping, the server needs to add its own *sequence number* to messages; ''
I think assuming extra ordinary config/storage/abilities for the
nobody objects).
''> Perhaps there is some confusion over one of our goals.>> One nice goals is to end up with a transport agnostic protocol, that''
Again, in my opinion the MTCP should run in a lower layer than mpCat
like TCP, that is how we can be transport agnostic. However, I think
there is a general consensus that async is off the table for now.
