[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP

Scott Shattuck ss at technicalpursuit.com
Thu Dec 12 20:45:50 UTC 2002

Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> Well I've long been pondering DTCP and it's relation to what we
> generally use now in Jabber, HTTP.  I think it's important to note that
> I don't mean HTTP as the WWW, I mean HTTP as a solid protocol.  I'm
> failing to find a reason that we are abandoning HTTP in favor or something
> else that is overly simplified.  The first obvious question that pops
> into my head is why we want to leave behind all the excellent premade
> HTTP libraries in favor of handwriting a whole new one.  Even if we had
> to handwrite a basic HTTP library the semantics are more well defined in
> the HTTP headers, and the method system is obvious.  The method system
> is a point of contention though.  People have said that the GET/PUT
> methods just don't make sense in relation to some usages.  Well, that's
> fine, make new methods.  The HTTP RFC clearly indicates that extension
> methods can be defined and used.  Proxying has been another large issue
> when discussing stream methods in Jabber, and later I think this might
> lead to cacheing issues.  The HTTP protocol has taken these into account
> and has headers for proxy authentication, as well as a whole section of
> the RFC devoted to cache control.  Finally we have the issue of
> authentication and authorization.  HTTP has entire RFCs devoted to
> authentication and authorization, plus it is easy to extend a new method
> from it, if we think we need something that better fits with Jabber.  So
> my question on the table is, why are we turning our backs on HTTP?  I
> urge everyone to read the HTTP and related RFCs and share their reasons
> why.
> --temas
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt

I have to agree.

 From my perspective HTTP/HTTPS support should be core to every server 
implementation. It's a fact of life that many organizations simply won't 
open their firewall to non-HTTP traffic. If our goal is ubiquity (and I 
think it should be) then our outermost connection/communication protocol 
should be HTTP/HTTPS. Creating additional proprietary protocols may 
"solve" some technical issues in a more streamlined fashion, but what 
good does that do the Jabber community if nobody will open the ports?


More information about the Standards mailing list