[standards-jig] DTCP again

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Fri Dec 13 15:48:39 UTC 2002


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 05:23 America/Denver, Justin Karneges wrote:

> Practically speaking, DTCP works well with no such proxy support.  
> Client
> implementations surfaced even without my assistance.  Only now am I 
> trying
> hard to seek standardization, as these clients need to remain 
> interoperable.
> Now I have my own implementation as well, and it is solid.  All of my 
> TCP
> worries are over.  I can link two clients together with just a few 
> lines of
> code.

Yeah, maybe behind your own firewall. For the rest of us who live in 
the "real world", NAT/Firewalls are a reality and something to be dealt 
with. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's sufficient to be 
included in a widely-used standard such as Jabber.

> This is not to say that JOBS is not useful, or that proxying is not 
> needed.
> It's just that client developers have no interest.  Instead, they want
> something that works today.  Is there any other reason DTCP would be 
> at the
> Last Call stage?

DTCP is at Last Call stage because a couple of people proposed it as 
such. That does _not_ mean it _should_ be at Last Call stage -- indeed, 
I would argue that the barrier to "Last Call" should be significantly 
higher. There is at least as many people opposed to DTCP as there are 
for it -- maybe more.

>
> Sorry to weasel out of this last question, but IMO, the issue of proxy 
> is
> still a separate matter, and I would like to defer the issue.  DTCP 
> was never
> meant to address it.

Then why did you even put it in your requirements section?

Diz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta

iQA/AwUBPfoBaWDRN3IVRx7DEQLHKQCfUP8k7jiJ3Fw+M1zJbV3z5ZvmVOsAoPag
Vkit3wH4oAcB2bM+z4AdrRAu
=Ne7s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list