[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Piers Harding piers at ompa.net
Wed Aug 14 05:40:06 UTC 2002

Very well said.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:02:53PM -0500, Jeremie wrote:
> 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 ;)
> Jer
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list