[Foundation] Criteria, Voting, Membership What does it mean?

Mike Lin mikelin at MIT.EDU
Tue Mar 12 10:21:41 CST 2002


> From the protocol side, I'm still confused why things are encapsulated in a
> <stream>,</stream> block.  It mostly doesn't matter, but it makes some
> assumptions that I can't make about the network.
> 
> 1. reliable
> 2. ordered message delivery (you better not get a </stream> before a content
> message :-)
> 3. 1 + 2 usually means TCP, I avoid that because it's not multicastable and
> I rely heavily on multicast for our work.
> 

One proposed addition to JEP-0017 Naive Packet Framing Protocol is to
add session ID and sequence number as well as packet length to the
frame. This would allow you to transport Jabber on top of an
unreliable/unordered channel. But in your case, if you're already
intending to not use TCP, then you must be (or plan to be) using a
custom implementation of something somewhere anyway, and it should be
pretty easy for you to add this.

As for the <stream>,</stream> block, this is an important distinction
between the protocol layer and the transport layer. <stream/> is part of
the Jabber protocol, whereas the issues you are noting deal with the 
transport layer. I don't think it is really obvious that <stream/>
determines the problems you are describing - although the problems
certainly are there. We should be able to fix the transport layer and
keep <stream/> around, which is useful for other reasons I won't get
into here.

Anyway, just a heads up that we are making progress on this problem from
a technical perspective.

> 
> The trademark copyright issue is a big one, but I don't care about it (if it
> doesn't work out the way I need it to, I have to pick another tech).  That
> is, I don't want to invest time in that kind of work.
> 

The email I sent out was meant to be a challenge to Jabber.com, Inc. to
establish some written policy that both they and the JSF can live with
and adhere to for the forseeable future. It is my understanding that
Jabber.com, Inc. is examining the problem. I will certainly keep on
their case for it.

But while we're not asking for you to invest time in that kind of work,
I think it is an issue we should all be genuinely concerned about. Maybe
you can "just pick another tech", but surely that will mean a large
investment of time and effort in retooling what you have which would
otherwise be avoided.

> Keep your chins up, if it weren't cool, nobody would argue.

I like this point :-)

-Mike




More information about the Members mailing list