[Council] VOTE: JEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Dec 5 10:52:42 CST 2003

Justin has made modifications to the JEP in order to address these
concerns. I've temporarily parked his modified version here:


Are the changes are acceptable?


On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:51:08AM -0700, Peter Millard wrote:
> Overall, this JEP looks fine, however I have one significant issue that I'd like
> to see addressed before I approve.
> I'd like to see some "Implementation/Usage Guidelines" added which make some
> SHOULD statements about how big the message packets should really be. IE,
> suggest a "chunk" size.
> Should the packet size be negotiated between the two endpoints before the data
> is transmitted?? For example, I can imagine a handheld device not having enough
> memory to handle packets of > 10K for example. Maybe it's sufficient for an
> endpoint be able to refuse a stream if the specified packet size is too large...
> what I'm thinking is:
> <iq type="set" id="inband_1" to="joe at blow.com/Home">
>   <open xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/ibb" sid="mySID"
>             message-size="10240"/>
> </iq>
> Then the recipient could send back possibly a 406-Not Acceptable if the
> message-size is too big. Thoughts??
> pgm.
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > The Last Call for JEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams) has ended without
> > comment. Therefore it is time to vote on this standards-track JEP, which
> > is required by JEP-0096 (file transfer). Please vote +1, 0, or -1 on
> > whether to advance this JEP to a status of Draft.
> > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0047.html

More information about the Council mailing list