[standards-jig] JabberNG (Jabber over BEEP) (was: JEP-0017: Naive Packet Framing Protocol)

Piers Harding piers at ompa.net
Sun Feb 3 06:51:56 UTC 2002


Very interesting.

I remember traveling back in a car from JabberCon last year with Jer, Temas, and ET - they were discussing something similar in that ( and I maybe wrong ), BEEP or another multi channeling facility could be used to deliver web browsing thru Jabber.  I wonder where those thoughts ended u[?

Cheers.


On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:20:51AM -0800, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> This is a short discussion starter on ideas for JabberNG (Jabber: Next
> Generation) inspired by recent talk of Jabber packet framing and issues
> brought up in the draft Jabber-RFC
> (http://foundation.jabber.org/jabber-rfc.txt)
> 
> We have identified several serious limitations with the Jabber protocols
> that can prevent it from growing into roles beyond its current IM duties.
> Most importantly in my opinion being the ability to transport arbitrary data
> in-band.  In addition, several scalability problems may prevent it from
> becoming as widely adopted as it could (see JEP-0017 and related list posts
> for discussion on why Jabber framing is problematic.)
> 
> I took a few days off from Jabber to really dig into the BEEP protocols
> (http://www.beepcore.org) as an alternative transport framework for building
> Jabber systems.  If you are not familiar with BEEP I suggest reading the
> protocol document.  BEEP is essentially a generic application transport
> protocol that provides authentication, framing, multiple "channels" on one
> connection, and other nice things.  I'm extremely impressed with the power
> and simplicity of BEEP.  It is elegant.
> 
> So on to the discussion.  Having looked at APEX (the BEEP standard profile
> for adding certain application protocols including IM and presence) I don't
> think it is the best way of layering IM and presence (and a whole bunch of
> other stuff) on top of BEEP.  I keep coming back to Jabber as a much better
> protocol to put on top of BEEP.
> 
> I'd like to discuss the idea of implementing Jabber on top of BEEP.
> 
> Is it a good idea technically speaking?
> What are the benefits and drawbacks from a non-technical standpoint?
> Will it meet future needs?
> Is it best as a JabberNG project, beep project, or completely new project?
> 
> -iain (troublemaker)
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig



More information about the Standards mailing list