[Council] Resolving the file transfer debate

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Jun 30 23:21:33 CDT 2003

I've been talking with Justin just now. He says the main objection that
he and one other person have to 95+96 is the inability to fall back if
the first method fails. Personally I don't see this as a common case
(and I think it would be best to have one reliable mechanism for file
transfer rather than the need for fallbacks etc.). However, I think one
could do this in 95+96 by re-using the stream ID (thus providing a
"link" between the original attempt and the fallback).


On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:42:39AM +1000, Robert Norris wrote:
> > I don't care what we do.  I'm going to try and get someone to motion
> > last call on 95 and 96 after we make one modification for the stream
> > id.  After that, I don't care, I'm keeping myself out of it for the bias
> > reasons mostly.
> > 
> > There is one issue I need to bring up though, and that's JEP-52.  If
> > Justin resubmits the old 52 to replace the current one I'm going to be
> > very upset.  The current 52 was created _with_ Justin and he gave his
> > stamp of approval on the 52 number.  I made sure to ask him about that
> > many times.  He's even listed as an author.  Plus I think it's dumb
> > because 95/96 deprecate/retract 52. 95/96 are basically the evolution of
> > 52, and almost used the 52 number.
> Basically, he told me that 41+52 constitute one FT "method", in the same
> way that 95+96 constitute another. I read 52, and asked him what
> relationship 52 had with 41, since it doesn't mention it. He told me
> that the official 52 was left in "shambles", and he intends to resubmit
> his earlier version.
> Frankly, I haven't been following the threads close enough to understand
> all the interdependencies. If nothing requires 41, and 52 is deprecated
> by 95/96, then why are we even having this argument? Perhaps we can just
> bless 95/96 and be done with it?
> If its decided this way, I'd probably be willing to motion the last call
> on 95/96 - at least I could understand them on first read ;)
> > I don't care though, I'm sick of working on this and getting it slammed
> > on the ground non stop.
> Your work is appreciated, temas. And it is crap that it keeps getting
> knocked down - as I've said before, there are too many people out there
> who have been given an opinion :/
> Rob.
> -- 
> Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
> Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/

Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Council mailing list