[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP
justin-jdev at affinix.com
Fri Dec 13 01:42:54 UTC 2002
On Thursday 12 December 2002 05:19 pm, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> submit to you that having to introduce a whole new state machine into
> clients to figure out if you have a direct connections to another
> client, establish the new connect, check for errors, etc., significantly
> increases the complexity of a client and goes against the Jabber Way.
This isn't a criticism to DTCP, but rather to whatever protocol were to ride
over it. In other words, some future JEP-0099 (c2c).
> Regardless, even if you tried to layer both chat and file transfer over
> the same connection, you're going to run into a slow of other problems,
I think you misunderstood here. ICQ uses a new channel for each transfer. I
would do the same. However, I think this is another discussion entirely.
> we do this when methods for this already exist. What you're suggesting
> here isn't a "Direct TCP" connection anymore, but port forwarding, and
Again, this isn't DTCP, but rather a possible use of it.
> I'm with stpeter, temas and Matthais on this one, I don't see any
> application where a new protocol is preferred over using something that
> is HTTP-based.
So why are we talking about all this other stuff when we could just be
enhancing iq:oob ?
More information about the Standards