[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Marshall Rose mrose+internet.jabber.standards-jig at dbc.mtview.ca.us
Fri Aug 9 17:14:06 UTC 2002

hi. a couple of brief comments:

> The only real drawback to BEEP that I see is that you still need to count
> octets in the packet in order to generate the frame which is pretty
> unfriendly to someone typing in things to talk to the server.  To
> accommodate direct human-to-BEEP interaction, I might propose a small
> modification to break some of BEEP to provide for non-octet counting based
> framing...  Maybe just unique begin/end text tags ala multi-part mime.

my biggest design regret with beep was having to put octet counts in the framing mechanism. the problem basically goes like this:

1. if you don't want to send arbitrary octets (binary), use the jabber approach -- it's simple, elegant, and works real well.

2. if you do want to send arbitrary octets, you can either do octet-stuffing (e.g., the extra "." in SMTP/POP/etc.) or octet-counting.

3. dave clark and dave crocker spent several hours convincing me that octet-stuffing was like "sucking dead pigs through a straw" in terms of performant implementations.

4. this leaves octet-counting which destroys the "telnet-ability" of the framing protocol.

> PS - I wouldn't be that opposed to coopting some of the APEX stuff too if it
> seems like it would be useful.  I like the APEX idea that routers and end
> points are not the same (although they could be).  This seems to be much
> more ISP friendly and creates the real possibility of moving a lot of the
> server bottlenecks into hardware (the APEX router stuff).

actually, i was planning on sending a note to the jabber gurus asking how to replicate one key feature of apex by using jabber. i still need to formulate the question though. i was planning on send the message in a couple of days to the jabber-ietf at jabber.org mailing list.

there are a lot of similarities between apex and jabber. in fact, had i better understood jabber two years ago, i would have spent my energy on jabber instead!


More information about the Standards mailing list