Slashdot Mirror
DCC2 Protocol for IRC file transfers
Joe_Hypnol writes "I just noticed this bit of news over at IRC Junkie. Looks like a bunch of irc client authors (and even more) are putting their heads together to come up with DCC2, a replacement for the the poorly designed DCC IRC file transfer specification. The old protocol was basically based on a usenet post, but this new one is looking like it'll be a full-blown standard. It's currently an IETF internet working draft. Read the press release at DCC2.org."
Well, I for one think this will be quite good. It's very frustrating to try to DCC a document to somebody only to have it fail for a variety of reasons. I look forward to improving this standard. :-)
On the other hand, this does improve the IRC-for-filesharing thing that I've seen... way back in the day before Kazaa, my friends used to pick up their movies etc. from IRC channels... so this will facilitate that, I suppose... possibly not what the authors have in mind.
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
Nicknames use SW-ASCII, yes that's right, the swedish variant of 7-bit ascii. That's the reason [ and { are equivalent, as is | and \.
There are no standard encoding. Most people use 8859-1, other languages use, well, whatever they happen to agree on. A number of other channels use UTF-8 which is the best solution (supports all languages) but is not supported by mirc.
Takeovers, splits, need I say more?
Server desync
I don't think DCC is a problem at all. It's all the other crap that needs to be fixed. Once you do, I'm pretty sure implementing good file transfers will be quite simple.
Um, yeah. Just about any time I need to send a file to a friend on IRC I would use DCC. For example, "Hey take a look at this logo", or "You need help? Send me your .cc file".
It seems like you have only been exposed to bots using DCC to send you files. You are talking about someone who distributes music on IRC or whatever, when in reality DCC is more than a means for bots to offer files. Normal users send files too... it's just like sending an email attachment.. you use those don't you?
I really, often do wonder why the RIAA (not to mention the MPAA and the BSA) has overlooked IRC for so long. 9/10ths of the channels on any of the reputable networks are dedicated to illegally distributing mp3z, moviez, warez or pr0n (or some combination thereof).
Now, dcc2 will make all that so much easier; which I guess is a boon for the various networks' profits, but at what moral cost?
Like it or not, pretty damn many use mIRC. Under community members, there's noone from mIRC there. I would hope that is temporary, because DCC really could use replacement. I'm now firewalled off with no incoming ports, two years ago I was NAT'd with no incoming ports.
It leads to extremely stupid things like being able to recieve but not send, even though it is obviously possible since once the connection is established, the data should be able to flow either way. The other big alternative is FTP, which also is horrible at dealing with passive mode.
The hilarious part is that the reason corporations, universities etc. seem to give for it is p2p - when they get around this trivially. On a network, someone will be active and there's no problem. You're only being a major pain in the ass for me when I want to do something with a friend that also has no open incoming ports.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As an IRC Admin, all I have to say is, just fucking wonderful, all IRC needs is a better file transfer method, to bring in more scum, and drag IRC down even more. IRC Stands for Internet Relay CHAT, and while it's nice to have a way to transfer files (like on most IMs), it's gotten out of hand, and it's doing nothing but hurting us chatters on IRC. I like Kazaa, WinMX, and the like as much as anyone else here, but I also love being able to chat on IRC.
When I tell people I use IRC, more and more people say something along the lines of "yeah, much better than kazaa" or "I could never figure it out, so I still use kazaa myself", it's quite sad. ISPs hate IRC, and it's hard to find any that will let you host IRC servers, if not because of it's rep for illegal MP3s, warez, ect, it's cause of the DDoS attacks IRC attracts because of the extra scum file transferring brings.
And now they want to improve DCC, JUST FUCING WONDERFUL!
The point is to let the protocol decide the best way to connect given several options so the user doesn't have to manually try each of the many variants of the DCC command that have been added to the different clients to overcome the problems with DCC (e.g. dealing with NAT).
I do not beleive that dcc2 will have a great difference of quality over the regular dcc but it will have more compatibility.
DCC2 will perform better than DCC in most circumstances. DCC requires ACKs every so often, halting transfer until the ACK is sent from the receiver. Since TCP/IP already guarantees delivery, this part of the protocol is completely redundant, and it can significantly slow down delivery.
They aim to "incorporate new technologies" but I dont see where they are going with this...
DCC2 is both simple and extensible, unlike DCC which, though simple, is not at all extensible. Some functionality that DCC2 could help standardize accross clients are whiteboard sharing, voice/video chat, encryption, IPv6 connections, etc.
--Riley, dIRC developer, Algenta Technical Staff member.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".