To me, I don't think this 0.7 proposal adds anything, apart from breaking the existing 0.6 protocol and building a new one.

Let me take a few examples to illustrate my point:

1. The 3-way handshake works. It is necessary for Ultrapeer negotiation with gentle redirection of an ultrapeer to leaf status. It is necessary for Gnet traffic compression negotiation.

I understand it can be done with a 2x2-way handshake, but you criticize the 3-way as being complex, so a 4-way is even more complex.

As to simply moving to a 2-way because it is simpler to implement, this is a valid point. However, given the need for 4-way exchanges somtimes, you have to handle exceptions anyway. So let's leave the handshaking as a 3-way process.

2. GUID tagging. This mixes a few concepts. You should have a look at my GGEP "Q" extension proposal, which I have posted on the GDF: It clearly separates between atributes that make sense during a query, and those that make sense during a reply.

Moreover, the "Q" extension is far more extensible that the bits in the GUID.

Finally, don't forget that the GUID is not sent in a query.

3. Renaming of Ultrapeers to something else. Well, I call them Ultranodes. I don't need a protocol 0.7 to call them the way I want. Everyone understand that Ultranodes and Ultrapeers are the same thing.

However, not everything you propose is to throw away. It's just that the premisses of your proposal are wrong, and you target your efforts on things that are superfical inconveniences (but would be a pain to backout) instead of moving forward and constructing.

Live and let learn!

Raphael