[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.
iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Mon Aug 12 17:10:05 UTC 2002
On 8/9/02 10:14 AM, "Marshall Rose"
<mrose+internet.jabber.standards-jig at dbc.mtview.ca.us> wrote:
> 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.
:) Ah the tortures of protocol design. For open source protocols, I am
under the impression that telnet-ability and script kiddie friendliness are
primary factors for success. It is a tough call though.
>> 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.
Could you Cc: standards-jig as well. The jabber-ietf list is pretty dead so
you'll probably get livelier discussions here.
More information about the Standards