[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.
jeremie at jabber.org
Tue Aug 13 19:02:53 UTC 2002
It's been an interesting debate, again :)
Although I don't have time at the moment (for other RL reasons) I just
want to mention that this entire debate is missing one of the most
important "philosophical" aspects of Jabber, aside from all the protocols
and bits: this is a world of many protocols, and we need not uniformly
move to any single one to achieve our goals.
JNG doesn't have to be just one protocol, nor does it have to decide
between just binary, just xml, or any other such dividing nonsense. At
one point, pre-1.0, the goal of the project had little to do with the xml
protocol we're now using and was focused purely on interoperability and
functionality, expecting that whatever protocols being used to achieve
those would be many, not one.
I think the larger picture here to make sure of is that JNG is an
architectural set of guidelines and frameworks that lend themselves to
working openly with each other via many protocols, XMPP, binary,
SIP/SIMPLE, even SMTP, HTTP, etc. "WE" don't need to win any Internet
protocol battle, instead "EVERYONE" can win if we help any and all
protocols evolve to work together more openly.
That philosophy aside, this is a much more difficult long-term problem,
dealing with identity, security, delivery, server-server discoverability,
conversion rules, and so on. We could take the first step by working
towards even two protocols that cooperate (existing XMPP and a binary-safe
one) either as alternatives (each feature can in some fashion be delivered
in the other, although maybe less "efficiently") or as full peers (each is
used for certian features with little overlap). Having a strong XMPP now
has helped first and foremost demonstrate the utility of open
interoperability, we need to be ready to let go of that strength to
embrace what it demonstrates and grow these features into other domains.
Anyway, just some thoughts for the mix ;)
More information about the Standards