I think this sounds fine, but I don't think you need an RFC to dictate
it. This would be a competitive advantage for an application, methinks.
- paul
Paul Ferguson writes:
>How would you feel if Pointcast slowly backed off and increased the time
>period between updates, but at the touch of a key or movement of the mouse
>it would go back to the "knob" setting? Obviously a low volume data feed
>like Pointcast may not be that big a load on the net but the heuristics
>(which do involve human factors) could probably be applied to a lot of
>other things like video feeds that will be bigger bandwidth consumers.
I think this sounds fine, but I don't think you need an RFC to dictate
it. This would be a competitive advantage for an application, methinks.
This comment got me wondering, and I don't like where I wound up ...
Would it be a competitive advantage? As far as responsible users go,
it probably would.
That brings up irresponsible users - users who don't care about their
impact, and even worse hacker-type users who would deliberately bring
down the net if they could ... how long before someone figures out how
to make a server direct a Real Audio stream (or whatever) at someone
else? The leverage for hackers could be enormous.