[Foundation] Recent confusion about the JSF, JINC and the IET F

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Fri Aug 2 14:50:17 CDT 2002


On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Tony Bamonti wrote:
 [...snip -- gotta save them bytes...]
> 4. Is there a difference between the Jabber protocol that the JSF has
>    been charged with managing, and the XMPP protocol that was offered to
>    the IETF?
>
> (TB:  There is no difference today.  IF the IETF approves an XMPP working
> group, I would expect significant participation and contribution by JSF
> members to achieve IETF ratification.  And by doing so, retain a high level
> of influence on the protocol now and in the future.  The JSF will also
> continue to be responsible for developing and managing protocol extensions
> as this is not part of the IETF charter.  No one would benefit from
> diverting the efforts.)

Tony-

Not to split hairs, and please don't take this out on me physically (you
do only see a few feet away from me), but this is not technically
accurate. So I guess I am going to split hairs.

The draft submitted to the IETF for consideration as XMPP is not
exactly the same as what is commonly considered to be the "Jabber
protocol," but I think that was intentional in some places. For example,
the SASL stuff from JEP-0034 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0034.html)
was added to address security concerns that have been raised regularly by
opponents of XMPP/Jabber (most noticably the people I like to refer to as
the SIMPLE folks).

My personal take on this is that this is a Good Thing (tm). One of my
biggest issues with how JSF has been dealing with protocol issues has been
the fact that everybody is really interested in add this or that cool new
feature, and ignoring that some of these important security related issues
need to be addressed. I, also, think it would be nice if the protocol was
altered in such a way to have a more well defined line between presence
and subscription, but that might be just me.

The point is, if an IETF WG were formed to work on the core protocol, then
I think issues like these would be addressed more readily. In addition, it
would expand the brainpower working on the protocol, and these issues
could be address quicker, since anybody who has been active in the JSF
over the last couple months can clearly see it is overloaded and under
manned. While the JSF membership is around 140 people, I would venture to
guess that less than 50% of these people are active, and its clear that
with all the new development going on around the protocol, more heads are
always better.

Okay, so I started out being nit-picky, and ended with a little rant.
Guess I'm just on a roll today.

Cheers,

bs.

BTW- For those who haven't perused them, the IETF submission are all
available at (http://www.jabber.org/ietf/). I think we all owe a debt of
gratitude to stpeter and jer (and anybody else who helped) for spending
hours upon hours putting these together. :)




More information about the Members mailing list