[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Dec 13 01:44:53 UTC 2002

I want to first reply only about JidLink.  I completely disagree that
JidLink solves any kind of problem for negotiating a connection.  In
fact it is just feature negotiation, so why not use feature negotiation
direclty like we did in file transfer.  The reason that it doesn't
really solve anything is the lack of immediate context.  I'm not going
to send a JidLink list to someone that includes iq:oob when I'm
negotiating a VoIP connection.  I only want to send him the valid
options for our specific task.  More so, I want it in my negotiation
with all the other options related to it.  Look at file transfer, the
user is better able to pick the transfer method because they immediately
have available information such as name, size, and mime-type.  I'm not
creating a system where we have to have 3 or 4 back-and-forths before
we've established all the exacts.  Unless I can be shown otherwise, I
don't see how JidLink is solving the problem set in an efficient manner.


On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:31:49AM +0100, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> Note that negotiating wich method should be used should *not* be 
> specified in eg. the Filetransfer JEP, but that this should be a 
> seperate layer (a la Jid-Link), else we'll have to reinvent the wheel 
> each time we want to do P2P data. 
> -- 
> Tijl Houtbeckers
> Java/J2ME/GPRS Software Engineer @ Splendo
> The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20021212/a58830e8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list