On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:10:38 +0100, Jacek Sieka <[email protected]> wrote:

I recently went through the whole 0.8 draft (but I only skimmed the
attachment you sent). It looks good, but one feature I am missing is;
if one client via a hub wants to request a connection (CTM) and the
requesting
party cannot connect (connection refused, firewalled/timeout
or whatever).

A DSTA will do just that, adding an error type for it probably makes sense...

Yes indeed, that's a good way. IMO, it needs to be standardized
with the token as a parameter defined in the protocol so we don't have
multiple implementations with different semantics.

(...)
Client passivity can already be deduced from the INF

Indeed. I didn't think about that...

Another thing I'm considering (suggested by some dcdev people =) is a publish-subscriber message type that gets a channel id and where the messages are only sent out to the clients that have subscribed. This could be used by extensions for instance to only send out a particular command to clients supporting a particular feature...the only thing that worries me is that it potentially makes the hub a bit more complex...on the other hand, almost all message passing protocols have these three types, direct, subscriber and broadcast so...

Sounds like a reasonable idea.
Does this mean a new message type, or simply using the exiting ones
with a target CID set to the special feature?