[standards-jig] DTCP again
jan at gondor.com
Fri Dec 13 17:08:08 UTC 2002
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 08:48:39AM -0700, Dave Smith wrote:
> On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 05:23 America/Denver, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > 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.
DTCP only fails if both parties are behind broken NAT or firewall
setups. Broken in the sense that they disallow a service the user wants
The fact that some people are unable to properly configure their
networks is no reason to inhibit the developmentment of a
widely-used standard such as Jabber.
I think DTCP as proposed in revision 0.7 is a reasonable tradeoff
between simplicity and completeness. If proxying can be added with
little effort, go for it. If it would make DTCP too complex, leave it
> > 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,
One could argue if DTCP should be in last call stage. But it obviously
shows that there are some people interested in DTCP.
> > 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?
The following design goals are considered:
* The protocol should be reasonably effective in scenarios involving
NAT and/or firewalls. 
* It should be reasonably secure.
* Establishing a connection should be fast.
* The protocol should be simple.
Proxies are not mentioned in the requirements section. Footnote 1
states what's meant by 'reasonably effective'.
More information about the Standards