[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.
mass at akuma.org
Fri Aug 9 03:29:09 UTC 2002
A couple of points:
1) JNG is really shorthand for 'all those things we have thrown in the
big basket because they break clients or are otherwise hard to think
about or implement'. We really need to think about what JNG means in
terms of an overall vision before we start prototyping implementations.
2) A binary application protocol greatly reduces our chances of getting
standardized. Exercise for the reader: Find three binary protocols on
standards track or which are standard @ the IETF which have been
authored within the last four years. And of course, there is the obvious
question: 'Why aren't you using BEEP?'
Mike Lin wrote:
>i've been coding these past few days on some JNG prototypes. nothing is
>done yet, but to help get the juices flowing i wrote down some of the
>things i'm aiming to do.
>most of the stuff i've done thusfar relates to the transport layer, and
>thus slips underneath adam's core tool protocols ideas, although i'm
>beginning to touch on them near the end.
>anyway, i'm just hoping to help get some conversations started. as the
><h3> at the top clearly states, this should not be taken seriously. it
>is not proven to work by any stretch of the imagination. i'm doing some
>very fluid experimentation in coding it up, and i'll keep things updated
>with my experiences.
>i'm not trying to get everyone to drop everything and switch over to
>JNG. i just think we need to start thinking about it more formally.
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards