[standards-jig] A Proposal to the DTCP/JOBS/PASS madness

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Sat Dec 14 18:39:59 UTC 2002


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


On Saturday, Dec 14, 2002, at 00:22 America/Denver, Justin Karneges 
wrote:

> If you're going to add a line protocol, then I suggest looking back to 
> DTCP
> where it is already very minimal.  The novelty in your proposal was 
> that it
> claimed to have no line protocol, but if that is not the case then we 
> don't
> need another DTCP, do we?  I've already solved the proxy case in my 
> latest
> variation.

Actually, Justin, the novelty in my proposal is that it uses Jabber for 
as much a possible and keeps the on-the-wire "protocol" down to the 
bare limit. Additionally, my proposal continues to have the advantage 
that it has fewer states for implementers to keep track of and those 
states have well-defined parameters. At this point, I believe the 
discussion around my proposal is at least interesting and benefits DTCP 
as well -- unless there are many other people who feel that this 
compromise in having a (truly) minimal data exchange invalidates my 
proposal, I'd like to see discussion continue.


> Anyhow, the other issue at hand is the "proprietary" aspect of these 
> line
> protocols, including your idea of a 4 byte binary header.  IMO, a small
> non-standard protocol is the way to go, but temas, pgm, and others 
> insist on
> using HTTP for a handshake.

My understanding of the "proprietary" line protocol issue is that 
people object to creating a complete protocol such as that defined in 
DTCP (or even JOBS). The modification I made to my proposal last nite 
hardly qualifies to be called "protocol". It's a one way, one time data 
transfer.

Diz

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

iQA/AwUBPft6/2DRN3IVRx7DEQLyaQCgpDR+01N3QVqn/mlInXFkldcFhJgAnAzq
UQLXvz+jKlGMctgQ/4Fjod5s
=wiJM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list