[standards-jig] JEP 65 - Bytestreams

Daniel Chote daniel at chote.net
Thu Dec 19 00:20:45 UTC 2002


Agreed.  Although I have not had significant time to read the jeps fully.
    The point about TCP timeouts would be an issue, considering the 
variance in timeout delays between clients and os's... To the end-user, 
a 1+ minute wait before the transmission even starts would probably put 
the user off from using file transfer in the client...  

Ill keep an eye on this thread, and reply with some content once I have 
had time to read and compare both jeps in full...

-Dan

Justin Karneges wrote:

>Hi pgm / psa,
>
>Thank you for your long replies.  I agree with nearly everything that has been 
>said.
>
>  
>
>>- I still have issues w/ the chaos of mutliple entities attempting multiple
>>connections at once.. If we change that, than what we have left is
>>basically JEP-65. Specifically, this sentence, REALLY scares me about
>>implementations: "As such, clients that are listening for connections
>>should be prepared for anything."
>>    
>>
>
>This seems to be the major difference in operation between the two JEPs.  
>However, I think this is not as chaotic as it may appear.
>
>Both JEP-46 and JEP-65:
>
>1) Do not require a client or server implementation, but should have at least 
>one of them. :)
>2) When acting as a server, the application SHOULD be able to handle multiple 
>simultaneous connections.
>3) When acting as a client, the application MAY connect to multiple hosts at 
>once of the same peer.  This is optional in both JEPs, there is nothing for 
>or against it.
>4) Clients should be prepared for anything :)
>
>In other words, JEP-65 has the same chaos.  What JEP-46 allows is for both 
>sides to connect to each other at the same time, which is something your 
>application would need to handle anyway, at least for connections of separate 
>contexts.  What difference does it make if they are in the same context?
>
>The benefit of connecting at the same time is that the existence of NATs 
>should not affect the speed at which a connection can be made.  So forming a 
>DTCP connection should not take much longer than a normal TCP connect.  With 
>JEP-65, there could be a delay of at least one TCP connect timeout (often 
>nearly a minute, quite significant) when the original initiator is behind 
>NAT, and possibly more if a client does not connect to multiple hosts at 
>once.
>
>  
>
>>- JEP-65 also has fewer round-trip IQ packets (which is also easier to
>>implement).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think JEP-46 is any more complex.  There is just a single round-trip 
>iq-set/result, with a possible one-way iq-error.  There is more involved if a 
>proxy is used, but that is even the case with JEP-65, and should be expected.
>
>  
>
>>- JEP-46 specifies a <ssl/> identifier. IMO, this is outside the scope of a
>>bytestream... if the protocol I want to use supports SSL, then maybe I use
>>    
>>
>
>The idea here is that I wanted to simplify the application layer.  HTTP, for 
>instance, has no support for "start-TLS" that I am aware of.  This means that 
>either the stream spec or FT spec is going to have to take care of TLS, and I 
>prefer doing it in the stream.  This is also a more sensible path when you 
>consider alternative bytestreams, like JEP-47, which would provide its own 
>encryption layer (XES or what-not).
>
>  
>
>>If another existing JEP has consensus (note that consensus != unanimous) in
>>the community, then thats the JEP that should move forward, and all other
>>JEPs which are trying to solve the problem should be withdrawn IMO. I think
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I agree.
>
>-Justin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>  
>

-- 

*. Daniel Chote*
email/jabber: daniel at chote.net
web: www.chote.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20021219/f8419bd6/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list