On 9/20/07, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The WG call for interest is still on-going, and will conclude at the end > of this week. Please write your thoughts. > > I see there has been some notes of support for progressing CCID-4 in the > working group, but no discussion as far as I can see on CCID-3 drops. > Specifically, this has been put forward as a STD-Track RFC, to modify > CCID-3 AND also as a requirement for CCID-4. Is this a good idea? Do you > plan to implement this? Could we live with JUST using this in CCID-4? > Thoughts? > > Gorry > Well I've been talking about CCID4 with two implementors during the last 24 hours and they were mentioning implementing the CCID3 drops there for it. I personally, don't see a great need for it for CCID3 unless it were to replace the existing mechanisms for loss detection rather than supplement them - it sure would make the code simpler! Having said that, it would have to be reliable delivery and it would break existing implementations. Ian -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
