[standards-jig] DTCP again
dizzyd at jabber.org
Fri Dec 13 15:48:39 UTC 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 05:23 America/Denver, Justin Karneges wrote:
> Practically speaking, DTCP works well with no such proxy support.
> implementations surfaced even without my assistance. Only now am I
> hard to seek standardization, as these clients need to remain
> Now I have my own implementation as well, and it is solid. All of my
> worries are over. I can link two clients together with just a few
> lines of
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
> 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
> 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?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards