Optimizations for IRC Protocol? 19
epiphani asks: "Over the past few years IRC has grown substantially. With this growth, many issues are arising with bandwidth usage. I've started rewriting the client-side protocol that has remained completely unchanged since the publication of RFC1459. During my conversations with various client authors and coders from the major networks, the suggestion has been made to remove the nickname as the unique namespace, replacing it with an ICQ-like UIN. This would mean the same nickname could appear more than once on a network. This would also apply to channel names, just as EFnet is planning to do in hybrid7, with Vchans. Does anyone have any suggestions to optimization of the current client-side protocol?"
Why? (Score:1)
Forgive me if I sound irrational, it is 5:30am EDT...
UIN # (Score:1)
However, for that to work the number would have to be uniquely assigned to you. So much for anonymity, vis-a-vis Pentium III.
The power of EFnet (Score:1)
However, if somebody get to your UIN (your idea) they might harass you and you might get to a point where you have to grab a new UIN to have peace. This is not what the IRC should be about, and some users really needs the privacy and relaxement of chatting on IRC.
Making a UIN "layer" makes it hard to chat in channels, if several users have similar nicks. You better try making IRC even more dynamic, introducing random earthquakes (netsplits), and hazardous storms like in the real world.
Out with the old, in with the new (Score:1)
The IRC protocol has done its dash. Its time for something completely different. Something extensible, something that better reports online presense. Check out IMUnified or Jabber.org [jabber.org]. Jabber even provides an IRC gateway (converting its native XML based protocol to the IRC protocol).
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:2)
Netsplits are certainly interesting but very much a pain in the ass if they happen for too long. How they can be good, I have no idea.
Re:One thing i'd like (Score:1)
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:1)
Additionally, this "UIN" solution was proposed by EFnet coders, and im not exactly too fond of it.
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:1)
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:1)
As far as UIDs go. Even if we don't let the user know they even have a UID, that is much better on bandwidth consumption.
I personally think UIDs are a good idea though. Basically unflatten the namespace. Of course UIDs aren't really much good unless you have some way of doing persistant UIDs. Of course their are other issues that would need to be worked out when dealing with non-unique nicks.
Re:Dalnet uses compression between servers (Score:1)
SSL (Score:1)
it would be a BIG plus in terms of corporate discussions (and, possibly the plotting of murders..)
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:1)
I think EFnet could "do well" by not listening to idiots, and shunting them off to the other, lesser networks where the network admins will give you back your nick when the bad man takes it from you and you can't defend yourself. Sheesh.
Re:RFC1459 is updated (Score:1)
Re:The power of EFnet (Score:1)
--
Control (Score:1)
Don't answer...
I heavily dislike such ideas. And not every continent has 24/7 online times.
Try to get a German DSL-flat. I'll get children earlier...
--
EFnet [slightly OT] (Score:1)
Please tell me EFnet is also planning on fixing their I: lines. It is VERY irritating to have to manually cycle through literally 25+ servers (I had to go through 27 once) just to find one that won't boot you off saying "you are not authorized to use this server."
---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:
Some ideas for the client-side protocol (Score:1)
Also, inclusion of the numeric 005 spefication in a RFC could be welcome (RPL_ISUPPORT) - as it makes clients able to know what is and what is not availiable on a server, and can take precautions to what kind of numerics it may recieve.
About UINs, my belief is that I need noone to be able to fake who I am, and UIN's will increase the stalking that usually happens by people. Doesn't UIN's take away the charm of IRC a bit? - we are not MSN/ICQ/(insertcrappychathere) last time I saw. Nickname problems: Why would we want 300 Gandalfs on same network? About vchans, I mean, Don't you like how #blah is managed? Make #blah+
:P or find another playground.
Generally, IRCd coders should sit down and make up a common standard - not the IRCnet RFC's, but RFC's that basically covers how most IRCds work today.
ICQ-like UIN? (Score:2)
For one thing, it's much easier to type a nickname. If we go through a netsplit (big surprise on Undernet
Previously mentioned on this discussion, however, was mentioned that on ICQ, one can sometimes have one's UIN assailed by harrassants, and all a person can do is get a new UIN for peace. Well, in my experience, the
I don't know. I'm just throwing out ideas. It might work, but it would take a lot more getting used to than some people on IRC might like. I wouldn't mind it, personally, but the UIN -- nickname issue would need to go smoothly..
Just my two cents.
Re:Control (Score:1)